Professional Documents
Culture Documents
MODERN
INDO-EUROPEAN
First Edition
Language and Culture
Writing System and Phonology
Morphology
Syntax
DNGH Carlos Quiles
Modesn Sindhueurp Grbhmtik
Apo Grilos Kriak
1
eti alis ugtores
Publisher : Asociacin Cultural Dnghu
Pub. Date : July 2007
ISBN : 978-84-611-7639-7
Leg. Dep. : SE-4405-2007 U.E.
Pages : 390
Copyright 2007-2009 Asociacin Cultural Dnghu
2006-2009 Carlos Quiles Casas.
Printed in the European Union.
Published by the Indo-European Language Association.
Content revised and corrected by Indo-Europeanist M.Phil. Fernando Lpez-Menchero Dez.
Edition Managed by
Imcrea Diseo Editorial
at <http://www.imcrea.com/>.
All content on this book is licensed under a Dual Licence Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License
and GNU Free Documentation License unless otherwise expressly stated. If you have no direct Internet connection,
please proceed to read the Creative Commons license (summary) text from another computer online in the website of Creative
Commons, i.e. <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/>, and its complete legal code in
<http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode>.
All images are licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License, most of them coming from Dnghus website
<http://dnghu.org/> or from the Indo-European Wiki <http://indo-european.eu/>, a portal on Modern Indo-
European, which in turn may have copied content from the English Wikipedia and other online and collaborative sources.
While every precaution has been taken in the preparation of this book, the publisher and authors assume no
responsibility for errors or omissions, or for damages resulting from the use of the information contained herein.
For corrections, translations and newer versions of this free (e)book, please visit
<http://dnghu.org/en/Indo-European grammar/>
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS........................................................................................... 3
PREFACE .............................................................................................................. 9
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION ............................................................................................................................. 11
WHATS NEW IN THIS EDITION ................................................................................................................................ 15
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................................................. 17
CONVENTIONS USED IN THIS BOOK .......................................................................................................................... 18
1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 23
1.1. THE INDO-EUROPEAN LANGUAGE FAMILY ......................................................................................................... 23
1.2. TRADITIONAL VIEWS ......................................................................................................................................... 25
1.3. THE THEORY OF THE THREE STAGES ................................................................................................................. 27
1.4. THE PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN URHEIMAT OR HOMELAND ................................................................................ 31
1.5. OTHER LINGUISTIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL THEORIES ....................................................................................... 35
1.6. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LANGUAGES .............................................................................................................. 37
1.7. INDO-EUROPEAN DIALECTS OF EUROPE ............................................................................................................. 39
Schleichers Fable: From Proto-Indo-European to Modern English ............................................................. 39
1.7.1. Northern Indo-European dialects ..........................................................................................................42
1.7.2. Southern Indo-European Dialects ..........................................................................................................62
1.7.3. Other Indo-European Dialects of Europe .............................................................................................. 70
1.7.4. Anatolian Languages .............................................................................................................................. 78
1.8. MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN ............................................................................................................................... 81
2. LETTERS AND SOUNDS .................................................................................. 85
2.1 THE ALPHABETS OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN ..................................................................................................85
A. Vowels and Vocalic Allophones ...................................................................................................................85
B. Consonants and Consonantal Sounds ........................................................................................................ 86
2.2. CLASSIFICATION OF SOUNDS ............................................................................................................................ 88
2.3. SOUNDS OF THE LETTERS ................................................................................................................................. 89
2.4. SYLLABLES .......................................................................................................................................................92
2.5. QUANTITY ........................................................................................................................................................ 93
2.6. ACCENT ........................................................................................................................................................... 94
2.7. VOWEL CHANGE ............................................................................................................................................... 95
2.8. CONSONANT CHANGE ...................................................................................................................................... 96
2.9. PECULIARITIES OF ORTHOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................... 99
A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
Indo-European Language Association <http://dnghu.org/>
2.10. KINDRED FORMS .......................................................................................................................................... 102
3. WORDS AND THEIR FORMS.......................................................................... 103
3.1. THE PARTS OF SPEECH ................................................................................................................................... 103
3.2. INFLECTION ................................................................................................................................................... 104
3.3. ROOT, STEM AND BASE ....................................................................................................................................105
3.4. GENDER ........................................................................................................................................................ 106
3.5. GENERAL RULES OF GENDER .......................................................................................................................... 109
3.6. VOWEL GRADE ................................................................................................................................................. 111
3.7. WORD FORMATION ......................................................................................................................................... 112
4. NOUNS ........................................................................................................... 115
4.1. DECLENSION OF NOUNS................................................................................................................................... 115
4.2. FIRST DECLENSION ......................................................................................................................................... 117
4.2.1. First Declension ..................................................................................................................................... 117
4.2.2. First Declension in Examples ............................................................................................................... 118
4.2.3. The Plural in the First Declension ........................................................................................................ 119
4.3. SECOND DECLENSION .................................................................................................................................... 120
4.3.1. Second Declension ................................................................................................................................ 120
4.3.2. Second Declension in Examples .......................................................................................................... 120
4.5.3. The Plural in the Second Declension .................................................................................................... 121
4.4. THIRD DECLENSION ........................................................................................................................................ 122
4.4.1. Third Declension Paradigm .................................................................................................................. 122
4.4.2. In i, u ...................................................................................................................................................... 123
4.4.3. In Diphthong ......................................................................................................................................... 124
4.4.4. The Plural in the Third Declension....................................................................................................... 125
4.5. FOURTH DECLENSION ..................................................................................................................................... 126
4.5.1. The Paradigm ........................................................................................................................................ 126
4.5.2. In Occlusive, m, l ................................................................................................................................... 127
4.5.3. In r, n, s ................................................................................................................................................. 128
4.5.4. The Plural in the Fourth Declension ..................................................................................................... 129
4.6. VARIABLE NOUNS ........................................................................................................................................... 129
4.7. VOCALISM BEFORE THE DECLENSION ............................................................................................................... 129
4.8. VOCALISM IN THE PLURAL ............................................................................................................................... 131
4.9. ACCENT IN DECLENSION ................................................................................................................................. 132
4.10. COMPOUND WORDS ...................................................................................................................................... 133
Table of Contents
5
5. ADJECTIVES .................................................................................................. 135
5.1. INFLECTION OF ADJECTIVES ............................................................................................................................ 135
5.2. THE MOTION .................................................................................................................................................. 135
5.3. ADJECTIVE SPECIALIZATION ............................................................................................................................ 136
5.4. COMPARISON OF ADJECTIVES .......................................................................................................................... 137
5.5. NUMERALS ..................................................................................................................................................... 138
5.5.1. Classification of Numerals .................................................................................................................... 138
5.5.2. Cardinals and Ordinals ........................................................................................................................ 138
5.5.3. Declension of Cardinals and Ordinals ................................................................................................. 140
5.5.4. Distributives .......................................................................................................................................... 142
5.5.5. Numeral Adverbs .................................................................................................................................. 143
5.5.6. Other Numerals .................................................................................................................................... 143
6. PRONOUNS .................................................................................................... 145
6.1. ABOUT THE PRONOUNS ................................................................................................................................... 145
6.2. PERSONAL PRONOUNS .................................................................................................................................... 145
6.3. REFLEXIVE PRONOUNS ................................................................................................................................... 146
6.4. POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS .................................................................................................................................. 147
6.5. ANAPHORIC PRONOUNS .................................................................................................................................. 148
6.6. DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS .......................................................................................................................... 148
6.7. INTERROGATIVE AND INDEFINITE PRONOUNS .................................................................................................. 149
6.7.1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 149
6.7.2. Compounds ............................................................................................................................................ 151
6.7.3. Correlatives ............................................................................................................................................ 151
6.8. RELATIVE PRONOUNS ..................................................................................................................................... 153
6.9. IDENTITY PRONOUNS ...................................................................................................................................... 153
6.10. OPPOSITIVE PRONOUNS ................................................................................................................................ 154
7. VERBS ............................................................................................................ 155
7.1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................... 155
7.1.1. Voice, Mood, Tense, Person, Number ................................................................................................... 155
7.1.2. Noun and Adjective Forms ................................................................................................................... 157
7.1.3. Voices ..................................................................................................................................................... 158
7.1.4. Moods .................................................................................................................................................... 159
7.1.5. Tenses of the Finite Verb ....................................................................................................................... 160
7.2. FORMS OF THE VERB ....................................................................................................................................... 160
7.2.1. The Verbal Stems ................................................................................................................................... 160
A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
Indo-European Language Association <http://dnghu.org/>
7.2.2. Verb-Endings ........................................................................................................................................ 161
7.2.3. The Thematic Vowel .............................................................................................................................. 164
7.2.4. Verb Creation ........................................................................................................................................ 165
7.3. THE CONJUGATIONS ........................................................................................................................................ 167
7.4. THE FOUR STEMS ............................................................................................................................................ 170
7.5. MOOD STEMS ................................................................................................................................................. 186
7.6. THE VOICE ..................................................................................................................................................... 188
7.7. NOUN AND ADJECTIVE FORMS ........................................................................................................................ 190
7.8. CONJUGATED EXAMPLES ................................................................................................................................. 193
7.8.1. Thematic Verbs ...................................................................................................................................... 193
7.8.2. Athematic Inflection ............................................................................................................................. 200
7.8.3. Other Common PIE Stems ................................................................................................................... 206
8. PARTICLES ................................................................................................... 209
8.1. PARTICLES ..................................................................................................................................................... 209
8.2. ADVERBS ....................................................................................................................................................... 210
8.3. DERIVATION OF ADVERBS .............................................................................................................................. 210
8.4. PREPOSITIONS ................................................................................................................................................ 212
8.5. CONJUNCTIONS ............................................................................................................................................... 213
9. PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN SYNTAX ............................................................... 215
9.1. THE SENTENCE ................................................................................................................................................ 215
9.1.1. Kinds of Sentences ................................................................................................................................. 216
9.1.2. Nominal Sentence .................................................................................................................................. 216
9.1.3. Verbal Sentence .................................................................................................................................... 218
9.2. SENTENCE MODIFIERS .................................................................................................................................... 221
9.2.1. Intonation Patterns ............................................................................................................................... 221
9.2.2. Sentence Delimiting Particles.............................................................................................................. 222
9.3. VERBAL MODIFIERS ....................................................................................................................................... 223
9.3.1. Declarative Sentences .......................................................................................................................... 223
9.3.2. Interrogative Sentences ....................................................................................................................... 224
9.3.3. Negative Sentences .............................................................................................................................. 225
9.4. NOMINAL MODIFIERS.................................................................................................................................... 226
9.4.1. Adjective and Genitive Constructions ................................................................................................. 226
9.4.2. Compounds. ......................................................................................................................................... 227
9.4.3. Determiners in Nominal Phrases. ....................................................................................................... 229
9.4.4. Apposition ............................................................................................................................................ 232
Table of Contents
7
9. 5. MODIFIED FORMS OF PIE SIMPLE SENTENCES ................................................................................................233
9.5.1. Coordination. ........................................................................................................................................233
9.5.2. Complementation. ............................................................................................................................... 236
9.5.3. Subordinate Clauses. ............................................................................................................................ 237
9.6. SINTACTIC CATEGORIES ................................................................................................................................. 242
9.6.1. Particles as Syntactic Means of Expression ....................................................................................... 242
9.6.2. Marked Order in Sentences. ................................................................................................................. 245
9.6.3. Topicalization with Reference to Emphasis. ....................................................................................... 245
APPENDIX I: INDO-EUROPEAN IN USE ............................................................ 247
I.1. TEXTS TRANSLATED INTO MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN ....................................................................................... 247
I.1.1. Patr ser (Lords Prayer) .................................................................................................................. 247
I.1.2. Slwie Marija (Hail Mary) ................................................................................................................... 248
I.1.3. Krddhmi (Nicene Creed) ................................................................................................................... 248
I.1.4. Nouds sns (Parable of the Prodigal Son) ....................................................................................... 251
I.1.5. Newos Bhoid (New Testament) Jhans, 1, 1-14 ............................................................................. 255
I.2 KOMTLOQIOM (CONVERSATION) ....................................................................................................................... 257
I.3 LATE PIE LEXICON ........................................................................................................................................... 259
APPENDIX II: PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN PHONOLOGY ................................... 303
II.1. DORSALS: THE PALATOVELAR QUESTION ....................................................................................................... 303
II.2. PHONETIC RECONSTRUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 307
II.2.1. Proto-Indo-European Sound Laws .....................................................................................................307
II.2.2. Consonants ........................................................................................................................................... 314
II.1.3. Vowels and syllabic consonants .......................................................................................................... 316
II.3. THE LARYNGEAL THEORY .............................................................................................................................. 318
Laryngeals in morphology ............................................................................................................................. 325
Pronunciation ................................................................................................................................................. 327
APPENDIX III. PIE REVIVAL FOR A COMMON EUROPE .................................. 329
III.1. MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN OR THE REVIVED PIE LANGUAGE ....................................................................... 330
III.2. EUROPEAN UNION INEFFICIENCIES ...............................................................................................................332
Modern Hebrew and the Land of Israel ....................................................................................................... 334
III.3. MORE THAN JUST A LINGUA FRANCA, EUROPES NATIONAL LANGUAGE ......................................................... 335
III.4. DNGHU, THE INDO-EUROPEAN LANGUAGE ASSOCIATION .......................................................................... 339
European Union Expenditure ....................................................................................................................... 342
III.5. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................................... 343
A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
Indo-European Language Association <http://dnghu.org/>
ETYMOLOGICAL NOTES .................................................................................. 345
BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................... 435
GNU FREE DOCUMENTATION LICENSE ........................................................... 437
PREFACE
This first edition of Dnghus A Grammar of Modern Indo-European, is a renewed effort to
systematize the reconstructed phonology and morphology of the Proto-Indo-European language into a
modern European language, after the free online publication of Europaio: A Brief Grammar of the
European Language in 2006.
Modern Indo-European is, unlike Latin, Germanic or Slavic, common to most Europeans, and not
only to some of them. Unlike Lingua Ignota, Solresol, Volapk, Esperanto, Quenya, Klingon, Lojban
and the thousand invented languages which have been created since humans are able to speak, Proto-
Indo-European is natural, i.e. it evolved from an older language Middle PIE or IE II, of which we have
some basic knowledge , and is believed to have been spoken by prehistoric communities at some time
roughly between 3000 and 2500 BC, having itself evolved into different dialects by 2500 BC spoken
until the split up of proto-languages in 2000 BC , either from IE IIIa, like Proto-Greek and Proto-
Indo-Iranian, or from IE IIIb, like Europes Indo-European.
Proto-Indo-European has been reconstructed in the past two centuries (more or less successfully) by
hundreds of linguists, having obtained a rough phonological, morphological, and syntactical system,
equivalent to what Jews had of Old Hebrew before reconstructing a system for its modern use in Israel.
Instead of some inscriptions and oral transmitted tales for the language to be revived, we have a
complete reconstructed grammatical system, as well as hundreds of living languages to be used as
examples to revive a common Modern Indo-European.
This grammar still focuses on the European Union and thus the main Proto-Indo-European dialect
of Europe, Europes Indo-European , although it remains clearly usable as a basic approach for the
other known PIE dialects spoken at the time, like Proto-Anatolian for Turkey, Proto-Greek for Greece
and Proto-Indo-Iranian for Western and Southern Asia, respectively. In this sense, Proto-European
might be the best lingua franca for the Americas, while Proto-Aryan is probably the best for Asia.
The former Dean of the University of Huelva, Classical Languages philologist and Latin expert,
considers the Proto-Indo-European language reconstruction an invention; Spanish Indo-Europeanist
Bernab has left its work on IE studies to dedicate himself to something more serious; Francisco
Villar, professor of Greek and Latin at the University of Salamanca, deems a complete reconstruction of
PIE impossible; his opinion is not rare, since he supports the glottalic theory, the Armenian Homeland
hypothesis, and also the use of Latin instead of English within the EU. The work of Elst, Talageri and
others defending the Indigenous Indo-Aryan viewpoint by N. Kazanas, and their support of an
unreconstructible and hypothetical PIE nearest to Vedic Sanskrit opens still more the gap between the
A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
Indo-European Language Association <http://dnghu.org/>
mainstream reconstruction and minority views supported by nationalist positions. Also, among
convinced Indo-Europeanists, there seems to be no possible consensus between the different schools
as to whether PIE distinguished between and (as Gk., Lat. or Cel.) or if those vowels were all initial
, as in the other attested dialects (Villar), or if the Preterites were only one tense (as Latin
praeteritum) with different formations, or if there were actually an Aorist and a Perfect.
Furthermore, Jos Antonio Pascual, a member of the Royal Spanish Academy (RAE), considers that
it is not necessary to be a great sociologist to know that 500 million people wont agree to adopt
Modern Indo-European in the EU (Spa. journal El Mundo, 8
th
April 2007). Of course not, as they wont
agree on any possible question not even on using English, which we use in fact , and still the
national and EUs Institutions work, adopting decisions by majorities, not awaiting consensus for any
question. And it was probably not necessary to be a great sociologist a hundred years ago to see e.g. that
the revival of Hebrew under a modern language system (an invention then) was a utopia, and that
Esperanto, the easy and neutral IAL, was going to succeed by their first World Congress in 1905.
Such learned opinions are only that, opinions, just as if Hebrew and Semitic experts had been
questioned a hundred years ago about a possible revival of Biblical Hebrew in a hypothetic new Israel.
Whether MIEs success is more or less probable (and why) is not really important for our current
work, but a hypothesis which might be dealt with by sociology, anthropology, political science,
economics and even psychology, not to talk about chance. Whether the different existing social
movements, such as Pan-Latinism, Pan-Americanism, Pan-Sanskritism, Pan-Arabism, Pan-Iranism,
Pan-Slavism, Pan-Hispanism, Francophonie, Anglospherism, Atlanticism, and the hundred different
pan-nationalist positions held by different sectors of societies as well as the different groups
supporting anti-globalization, anti-neoliberalism, anti-capitalism, anti-communism, anti-
occidentalism, etc. will accept or reject this project remains unclear.
What we do know now is that the idea of reviving Europes Indo-European as a modern language for
Europe and international organizations is not madness, that it is not something new, that it doesnt
mean a revolution as the use of Spanglish, Syndarin or Interlingua nor an involution as
regionalism, nationalism, or the come back to French, German or Latin predominance , but merely
one of the many different ways in which the European Union linguistic policy could evolve, and maybe
one way to unite different peoples from different cultures, languages and religions (from the Americas
to East Asia) for the sake of stable means of communication. Just that tiny possibility is enough for us
to lose some years trying to give our best making the main Proto-Indo-European dialects as usable
and as known as possible.
Preface
11
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION
According to Dutch sociologist Abram de Swaan, every language in the world fits into one of four
categories according to the ways it enters into (what he calls) the global language system.
Central: About a hundred languages in the world belong here, widely used and comprising about
95% of humankind.
Supercentral: Each of these serves to connect speakers of central languages. There are only
twelve supercentral languages, and they are Arabic, Chinese, English, French, German,
Hindi, Japanese, Malay, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish and Swahili.
Hypercentral: The lone hypercentral language at present is English. It not only connects central
languages (which is why it is on the previous level) but serves to connect supercentral languages as
well. Both Spanish and Russian are supercentral languages used by speakers of many languages,
but when a Spaniard and a Russian want to communicate, they will usually do it in English.
Peripheral: All the thousands of other languages on the globe occupy a peripheral position
because they are hardly or not at all used to connect any other languages. In other words, they are
mostly not perceived as useful in a multilingual situation and therefore not worth anyones effort
to learn.
De Swaan points out that the admission of new member states to the European Union brings with it
the addition of more languages, making the polyglot identity of the EU ever more unwieldy and
expensive. On the other hand, it is clearly politically impossible to settle on a single language for all the
EUs institutions. It has proved easier for the EU to agree on a common currency than a common
language.
Of the EUs current languages, at least 14 are what we might call a robust language, whose speakers
are hardly likely to surrender its rights. Five of them (English, French, German, Portuguese and
Spanish) are supercentral languages that are already widely used in international communication, and
the rest are all central.
In the ongoing activity of the EUs institutions, there are inevitably shortcuts taken - English, French
and German are widely used as working languages for informal discussions. But at the formal level all
the EUs official languages (i.e. the language of each member state) are declared equal.
Using all these languages is very expensive and highly inefficient. There are now 23 official languages:
Bulgarian, Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, Estonian, Finnish, French, German, Greek,
Hungarian, Irish Gaelic, Italian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Maltese, Polish, Portuguese,
Romanian, Slovak, Slovene, Spanish and Swedish, and three semiofficial (?): Catalan, Basque
and Galician. This means that all official documents must be translated into all the members
A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
Indo-European Language Association <http://dnghu.org/>
recognized languages, and representatives of each member state have a right to expect a speech in their
language to be interpreted. And each member state has the right to hear ongoing proceedings
interpreted into its own language.
Since each of the twenty one languages needs to be interpreted/translated into all the rest of the
twenty, 23 x 22 (minus one, because a language doesnt need to be translated into itself) comes to a total
of 506 combinations (not taking on accound the semiofficial languages). So interpreters/translators
have to be found for ALL combinations.
In the old Common Market days the costs of using the official languages Dutch, English, French, and
German could be borne, and interpreters and translators could be readily found. But as each new
member is admitted, the costs and practical difficulties are rapidly becoming intolerably burdensome.
The crucial point here is that each time a new language is added, the total number of combinations isnt additive
but multiplies: 506 + one language is not 507 but 552, i.e. 24 x 23, since every language has to be
translated/interpreted into all the others (except itself).
It is not hard to see that the celebration of linguistic diversity in the EU only lightly disguises the
logistical nightmare that is developing. The EU is now preparing for more languages to come:
Romanian and Bulgarian have been recently added, with the incorporation of these two countries to
the EU; Albanian, Macedonian, Serbian, Bosnian and Croatian (the three formerly known as
Serbo-Croatian, but further differentiated after the Yugoslavian wars) if they are admitted to the EU as
expected; and many other regional languages, following the example of Irish Gaelic, and the three semi-
official Spanish languages: Alsatian, Breton, Corsican, Welsh, Luxemburgish and Sami are
likely candidates to follow, as well as Scottish Gaelic, Occitan, Low Saxon, Venetian,
Piedmontese, Ligurian, Emilian, Sardinian, Neapolitan, Sicilian, Asturian, Aragonese,
Frisian, Kashubian, Romany, Rusin, and many others, depending on the political pressure their
speakers and cultural communities can put on EU institutions. It will probably not be long before
Turkish, and with it Kurdish (and possibly Armenian, Aramaic and Georgian too), or maybe
Ukrainian, Russian and Belarusian, are other official languages, not to talk about the eternal
candidates languages, Norwegian (in at least two of its language systems, Bokml and Nynorsk),
Icelandic, Romansh, Monegasque (Monaco) and Emilian-Romagnolo (San Marino), and this
could bring the number of EU languages over 40. The number of possible combinations are at best
above 1000, which doesnt seem within the reach of any organization, no matter how well-meaning.
Many EU administrators feel that to a great extent this diversity can be canceled out by ever-
increasing reliance on the computer translation that is already in heavy use. It is certainly true that if we
couldnt count on computers to do a lot of the translation heavy lifting, even the most idealistic
administrator would never even dream of saddling an organization with an enterprise that would
Preface
13
quickly absorb a major part of its finances and energy. But no machine has yet been invented or
probably ever will be that is able to produce a translation without, at the very least, a final editing by a
human translator or interpreter.
The rapidly increasing profusion of languages in the EU is quickly becoming intolerably clumsy and
prohibitively expensive. And this doesnt even count the additional expense caused by printing in the
Greek alphabet and soon in the Cyrillic (Bulgarian and Serbian). Everyone agrees that all languages
must have their place in the sun and their diversity celebrated. But common sense suggests that the EU
is going to be forced to settle on a very small number of working languages, perhaps only one, and the
linguistic future of the EU has become the subject of intense debate.
Only in public numbers, the EU official translation/interpretation costs amount to more than 1.230
M, and it comes to more than 13% of todays administrative expenditure of the EU institutions. There
are also indirect costs of linguistic programmes aimed at promoting the learning of three or more
languages since the Year of Languages (2001), which also means hundreds of millions of Euros, which
havent been counted in the EUs budget as linguistic expenditure, but are usually included in budget
sections such as Cohesion or Citizenship. It is hard to imagine the huge amount of money (real or
potential) lost by EU citizens and companies each day because of communication problems, not only
because they cant speak a third partys language, but because they wont speak it, even if they can.
Preserving the strict equality is the EUs lifeblood, and it is a very disturbing thought that the strongest
candidate for a one-language EU is the one with an established dominance in the world, English,
which is actually only spoken by a minority within Europe. Latin and Artificial languages (as Esperanto,
Ido or Interlingua) have been proposed as alternatives, but neither the first, because it is only related to
romance languages, nor the second, because they are (too) artificial (invented by one person or a small
group at best), solve the linguistic theoretical problems, not to talk about the practical ones.
The Indo-European language that we present in this work, on the contrary, faces not only the
addressed theoretical problems - mainly related to cultural heritage and sociopolitical proud - but
brings also a practical solution for the European Union, without which there can be no real integration.
European nations are not prepared to give up some of their powers to a greater political entity, unless
they dont have to give up some fundamental rights. Among them, the linguistic ones have proven
harder to deal with than it initially expected, as they are raise very strong national or regional feelings.
Indo-European is already the grandmother of the majority of Europeans. The first language of more
than 97% of EU citizens is Indo-European, and the rest can generally speak at least one of them as
second language. Adopting Indo-European as the main official language for the EU will not mean giving
up linguistic rights, but enhancing them, as every other official language will have then the same status
A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
Indo-European Language Association <http://dnghu.org/>
under their common ancestor; it wont mean losing the own culture for the sake of unity, but recovering
it altogether for the same purpose; and, above all, it will not mean choosing a lingua franca to
communicate with foreigners within an international organization, but accepting a National Language
to communicate with other nationals within the same country.
NOTE. The above information is mainly copied (literally, adjusted or modified) from two of Mr. William Z.
Shetter Language Miniatures, which can be found in his website:
http://home.bluemarble.net/~langmin/miniatures/Qvalue.htm
http://home.bluemarble.net/~langmin/miniatures/eulangs.htm
o EU official expenditure numbers can be consulted here:
http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/05/10&type=HTML&aged=0&la
nguage=EN&guiLanguage=en
http://europa.eu.int/comm/budget/library/publications/budget_in_fig/dep_eu_budg_2007_en.pdf
o Official information about EU languages can be found at:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/policies/lang/languages/index_en.html
http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/policies/lang/languages/langmin/euromosaic/index_en.html
Preface
15
WHATS NEW IN THIS EDITION
This is A Grammar of Modern Indo-European, First Edition, with Modern Indo-European Language
Grammatical system in Pre-Version 4, still in eta phase i.e., still adjusting some important
linguistic questions, and lots of minor mistakes, thanks to the contributions of experts and readers.
NOTE. A version number (N) is given to full revisions of the grammar, and each minor correction published
must be given a different number to be later identified, usually ranging from N.01 to N.99. This book includes a
full correction of version 3, but is still Pre-Version 4, which means the correction was not finished, and it its
therefore still 3.xx. Full revisions are driven from beginning to end, so there should be a comment marking the
end of the revised material. Since version 3.8x that note is already in the Etymological Notes section.
Europes Indo-European version 4 continues Modern Indo-European version 3 (first printed
edition, since June 2007), and this in turn version 2, which began in March 2007, changing most
features of the old Europaio/Sindhueuropaiom concept of version 1 (Europaio: A Brief Grammar
of the European Language, 2005-2006), in some cases coming back to features of Indo-European 0.x
(2004-2005).
1. The artificial distinction in Europaiom and Sindhueuropaiom systems (each based on different
dialectal features) brings more headaches than advantages to our Proto-Indo-European revival project;
from now on, only a unified Modern Indo-European, based on Europes Indo-European (or Proto-
European) is promoted. Sindhueuropaiom (i.e. Proto-Indo-European) became thus a theoretical
project for using the phonetical reconstructions of Late PIE.
2. Unlike the first simplified Europaio grammar, this one goes deep into the roots of the specific Indo-
European words and forms chosen for the modern language. Instead of just showing the final output,
expecting readers to accept the supposed research behind the selections, we let them explore the details
of our choices and sometimes the specifics of the linguistic reconstruction , thus sacrificing
simplicity for the sake of thorough approach to modern IE vocabulary.
3. The old Latin-only alphabet has been expanded to include Greek and Cyrillic writing systems, as
well as a stub of possible Armenian, Arabo-Persian and Devanagari (abugida) systems. The objective is
not to define them completely (as with the Latin alphabet), but merely to show other possible writing
systems for Modern Indo-European, Modern Anatolian, Modern Aryan, and Modern Hellenic.
4. The traditional phonetic distinction of palatovelars was reintroduced for a more accurate phonetic
reconstruction of Late PIE, because of the opposition found (especially among Balto-Slavic experts)
against our simplified writing system. Whether satemization was a dialectal and phonological trend
A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
Indo-European Language Association <http://dnghu.org/>
restricted to some phonetic environments (PIE k- before some sounds, as with Latin c- before -e and -
i), seemed to us not so important as the fact that more people feel comfortable with an exact although
more difficult phonetic reconstruction. From versions 3.xx onwards, however, a more exact
reconstruction is looked for, and therefore a proper explanation of velars and vocalism (hence also
laryngeals) is added at the end of this book coming back, then, to a simplified writing system.
4. The historically alternating Oblique cases Dative, Locative, Instrumental and Ablative, were shown
on a declension-by-declension (and even pronoun-by-pronoun) basis, as Late PIE shows in some
declensions a simpler, thus more archaic, reconstructible paradigm (as i,u) while others (as the
thematic e/o) show almost the same Late PIE pattern of four differentiated oblique case-endings. Now,
the 8 cases traditionally reconstructed are usable and its differentiation recommended in MIE.
The classification of Modern Indo-European nominal declensions has been reorganized to adapt it to a
more Classic pattern, to help the reader clearly identify their correspondence to the different Greek and
Latin declension paradigms.
5. The verbal system has been reduced to the reconstructed essentials of Late Proto-Indo-European
conjugation and of its early dialects. Whether such a simple and irregular system is usable as is, without
further systematization, is a matter to be solved by Modern Indo-European speakers.
The so-called Augment in -, attested almost only in Greek, Indo-Iranian and Armenian, is sometimes
left due to Proto-Indo-European tradition, although recent research shows that it was neither
obligatory, nor general in Late PIE. It is believed today that it was just a prefix with a great success in
the southern dialects, as per- (<PIE per-) in Latin or ga- (<PIE ko-) in Germanic.
6. The syntactical framework of Proto-Indo-European has been dealt with extensively by some
authors, but, as the material hasnt still been summed up and corrected by other authors (who usually
prefer the phonological or morphological reconstruction), we use literal paragraphs from possibly the
most thorough work available on PIE syntax, Winfred P. Lehmans Proto-Indo-European Syntax (1974),
along with some comments and corrections made since its publication by other scholars.
The timetable of the next grammatical and institutional changes can be followed in the website of the
Indo-European Language Association.
Preface
17
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
To Mayte, my best friend, for her support and encouragement before I worked on this project, even
before she knew what was it all about. For the money and time spent in lunchtimes, books, websites,
servers and material. For her excitement when talking about the changes that Proto-Indo-European
revival could bring to the worlds future. Thank you.
To Fernando Lpez-Menchero, Civil Engineer and Classic Languages Philologist, expert in Indo-
European linguistics, for his invaluable help, revision and corrections. Without his unending
contributions and knowledge, this grammar wouldnt have shown a correct Proto-Indo-European
reconstruction. Sorry for not correcting all mistakes before this first edition.
To Prof. Dr. Luis Fernando de la Macorra, expert in Interregional Economics, and Prof. Dr. Antonio
Muoz, Vice-Dean of Academic Affairs in the Faculty of Library Science, for their support in the
University Competition and afterwards.
To D.Phil. Neil Vermeulen, and English Philologist Ftima Batalla, for their support to our revival
project within the Dnghu Association.
To the University of Extremadura and the Cabinet of Young Initiative, for their prize in the
Entrepreneurial Competition in Imagination Society (2006) and their continuated encouragement.
To the Department of Classical Antiquity of the UEx, for their unconditional support to the project.
To the Regional Government of Extremadura and its public institutions, for their open support to the
Proto-Indo-European language revival.
To the Government of Spain and the Presidents cabinet, for encouraging us in our task.
To Manuel Romero from Imcrea.com Diseo Editorial, for his help with the design and editorial
management of this first printed edition.
To all professors and members of public and private institutions who have shared with us their
constructive criticisms, about the political and linguistic aspects of PIEs revival.
To Europa Press, RNE, El Peridico Extremadura, Terra, El Diario de Navarra, and other Media, and
especially to EFE, Hoy, El Mundo, TVE, TVE2, RTVExtremadura for their extensive articles and reports
about Modern Indo-European.
We thank especially all our readers and contributors. Thank you for your emails and comments.
A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
Indo-European Language Association <http://dnghu.org/>
CONVENTIONS USED IN THIS BOOK
1. Modern Indo-European or MIE: To avoid some past mistakes, we use the term Europaiom only to
refer to the European language system, or to the reconstructed Europes Indo-European (EIE)
proto-language. The suitable names for the simplified Indo-European language system for Europe are
thus European language or European, as well as Europaio.
2. The roots of the reconstructed Middle PIE language (PIH) are basic morphemes carrying a
lexical meaning. By addition of suffixes, they form stems, and by addition of desinences, these form
grammatically inflected words (nouns or verbs).
NOTE. PIE reconstructed roots are subject to ablaut, and except for a very few cases, such ultimate roots are
fully characterized by its constituent consonants, while the vowel may alternate. PIH roots as a rule have a single
syllabic core, and by ablaut may either be monosyllabic or unsyllabic. PIH roots may be of the following form
(where K is a voiceless stop, G an unaspirated and G
h
an aspirated stop, R a semivowel (r, l, m, n, u, i) and H a
laryngeal (or s). After Meillet, impossible PIH combinations are voiceless/aspirated (as in *teub
h
or *b
h
eut), as
well as voiced/voiceless (as in *ged or *deg). The following table depicts the general opinion:
stops - K- G- G
h
-
- [HR]e[RH] K[R]e[RH] G[R]e[RH] G
h
[R]e[RH]
-K [HR]e[RH]K - G[R]e[RH]K G
h
[R]e[RH]K
-G [HR]e[RH]G K[R]e[RH]G - G
h
[R]e[RH]G
-G
h
[HR]e[RH]G
h
K[R]e[RH]G
h
G[R]e[RH]G
h
G
h
[R]e[RH]G
h
*
*This combination appears e.g. in b
h
eud
h
, awake, and b
h
eid
h
, obey, believe.
A root has at least one consonant, for some at least two (e.g. PIH hek vs. EIE ek-, quick, which is the root for
MIE adj. ks). Depending on the interpretation of laryngeals, some roots seem to have an inherent a or o vowel,
EIE ar (vs. PIH h
2
ar-), fit, EIE ong
w
(vs. PIH h
3
eng
w
) anoint, EIE ak (vs. PIH h
2
ek) keen.
By root extension, a basic CeC (with C being any consonant) pattern may be extended to CeC-C, and an s-
mobile may extend it to s-CeC.
The total number of consonant, sonant and laryngeal elements that appear in an ordinary syllable are three
i.e., as the triliteral Semitic pattern. Those which have less than three are called Concave verbs (cf. PIH Hes,
Hei, g
w
em); those extended are called Convex verbs (cf. Lat. plang, sparg, frang, etc., which, apart from the
extension in -g, contain a laryngeal); for more on this, vide infra on MIE Conjugations.
3. Verbs are usually shown in notes without an appropriate verbal noun ending -m, infinitive ending
tu/-ti, to distinguish them clearly from nouns and adjectives. They arent shown inflected in 1
st
P.Sg.
Present either as they should , because of the same reason, and arent usually accented.
Preface
19
NOTE. Ultimate PIH reconstructed verbal roots are written even without an athematic or thematic ending.
When an older laryngeal appears, as in PIH pelh
2
-, it sometimes remain, as in EIE pela-, or in case of ultimate
roots with semivowel endings [i], [u], followed by an older laryngeal, they may be written with ending -j or -w.
4. Adjectives are usually shown with an accented masculine (or general) ending -s, although
sometimes a complete paradigm -s, -, -m, is written.
5. An acute accent is written over the vowel or semivowel in the stressed syllable, except when stress
is on the penult (one syllable before the last) and in monosyllabic words. Accented long vowels and
sonants are represented with special characters. The weak vowel of a possible diphthong is also
accented; so in emi, I go, instead of eimi, which would be read usually as *imi if left unaccented.
6. For zero-grade or zero-ending, the symbol is sometimes used.
7. Proto-Indo-European vowel apophony or Ablaut is indeed normal in MIE, but different dialectal
Ablauts are corrected when loan-translated. Examples of these are komb
h
asts, from Lat. confessus
(cf. Lat. fassus sum), from EIE b
h
-; EIE d
h
akls/disd
h
akls, as Lat. facilis/difficilis, from PIE d
h
-;
MIE sali/ensali/ensalt, as Lat. sali/insili/insult, etc.
NOTE. Such Ablaut is linked to languages with musical accent, as Latin. In Italic, the tone was always on the first
syllable; Latin reorganized this system, and after Roman grammarians penultimate rule, Classic Latin accent
felt on the penultimate syllable if long, on the antepenultimate if short (hence Lat. pudcus but mdicus), thus
triggering off different inner vocalic timbres or Ablauts. Other Italic dialects, as Oscan or Umbrian, didnt suffered
such apophony; cf. Osc. anterstata , Lat. interstitae; Umb. antakres, Lat. integris; Umb. procanurent, Lat.
procinuerint, etc. Germanic also knew such tone variations. For more on this topic, see phonotactic development
in Latin at <http://www.cunyphonologyforum.net/SYLLPAPERS/Senhandoutnew.pdf>.
8. In Germanic, Celtic and Italic dialects the IE intervocalic -s- becomes voiced, and then it is
pronounced as the trilled consonant, a phenomenon known as Rhotacism; as with zero-grade ks [krs]
from EIE stem kers-, run, giving s-derivatives O.N. horskr, Gk. -, and r-derivatives as MIE
ksos, wagon, cart, from Celtic (cf. Gaul. karros, O.Ir., M.Welsh carr, into Lat. carrus) and ks, run,
cf. Lat. curr. In light of Greek forms as criterion, monastery, etc., the suffix to indicate place where
(and sometimes instrument) had an original IE r, and its reconstruction as PIE s is wrong.
9. Some loans are left as they are, without necessarily implying that they are original Indo-European
forms; as Latin mappa, map, aiqi-, aequi-, Celtic pen-, head, Greek sphaira, sphere, Germanic
iso-, ice, and so on. Some forms are already subject to change in MIE for a more purist approach to a
common EIE, as ati- for Lat. re-, -ti for (Ita. and Arm.) secondary -ti(n), etc.
10. In Romance languages, Theme is used instead of Stem. Therefore, Theme Vowel and Thematic
refer to the Stem endings, usually to the e/o endings. In the Indo-European languages, Thematic roots
are those roots that have a theme vowel; a vowel sound that is always present between the root of the
A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
Indo-European Language Association <http://dnghu.org/>
word and the attached inflections. Athematic roots lack a theme vowel, and attach their inflections
directly to the root itself.
NOTE. The distinction between thematic and athematic roots is especially apparent in the Greek verb; they fall
into two classes that are marked by quite different personal endings. Thematic verbs are also called - (-) verbs
in Greek; athematic verbs are - (-mi) verbs, after the first person singular present tense ending that each of them
uses. The entire conjugation seems to differ quite markedly between the two sets of verbs, but the differences are
really the result of the thematic vowel reacting with the verb endings. In Greek, athematic verbs are a closed class
of inherited forms from the parent IE language. Marked contrasts between thematic and athematic forms also
appear in Lithuanian, Sanskrit, and Old Church Slavonic. In Latin, almost all verbs are thematic; a handful of
surviving athematic forms exist, but they are considered irregular verbs.
The thematic and athematic distinction also applies to nouns; many of the old IE languages distinguish between
vowel stems and consonant stems in the declension of nouns. In Latin, the first, second, fourth, and fifth
declensions are vowel stems characterized by a, o, u and e, respectively; the third declension contains both
consonant stems and i stems, whose declensions came to closely resemble one another in Latin. Greek, Sanskrit,
and other older IE languages also distinguish between vowel and consonant stems, as did Old English.
11. PIE d+t, t+t, dh+t MIE st; PIE d+d, t+d, dh+d MIE sd; PIE d+dh, t+dh, dh+dh MIE
sdh; because of the common intermediate phases found in Proto-Greek, cf. Gk. st, sth (as pistis, oisqa),
and Europes Indo-European, cf. Lat. est, come, and O.H.G. examples. For an earlier stage of this
phonetic output, compare O.Ind. seh<*sazdhi, sit!, and not *satthi (cf. O.Ind. deh, Av. dazdi).
NOTE. It has been proposed an earlier TTTsT (where T = dental stop), i.e. that the cluster of two dental stops
had a dental fricative s inserted between them. It is based on some findings in Hittite, where cluster tst is spelled
as z (pronounced as ts), as in PIH h
1
ed-ti, he eats *h
1
etsti Hitt. ezzi. Confirmation from early intermediate
and common (Late PIE) -st- are found e.g. in O.Ind. mastis, measure, from *med-tis, or Av. -hasta-, from
*sed-ts. This evolution was probably overshadowed by other Aryan developments, see Appendix II.
12. PIE made personal forms of composed verbs separating the root from the so-called prepositions,
which were actually particles which delimited the meaning of the sentence. Thus, a sentence like Lat.
uos supplico is in PIE as in O.Lat. sub uos placo. The same happened in Homeric Greek, in Hittite, in
the oldest Vedic and in modern German trennbare Verben. Therefore, when we reconstruct a verb like
accept, MIE inf. adkpttus, it doesnt mean it should be used as in Classic Latin (in fact its ablaut has
been reversed), or indeed as in Modern English, but with its oldest use: kpti ad, I accept.
13. Reasons for not including the palatovelars in MIE writing system are 1) that, although possible,
their existence is not sufficiently proven (see Appendix II.2); 2) that their writing because of tradition
or etymology is not justified, as this would mean a projective writing (i.e., like writing Lat. casa, but
Lat. entum, because the k-sound before -e and -i evolves differently in Romance). The pairs and
, Iuve been proposed Lo wrILe LIem, Ior LIose wIIIIng Lo dIIIerenLIuLe LIeIr pronuncIuLIon.
Preface
21
The following abbreviations apply in this book:
IE : Indo-European
IE II : Middle PIE or PIH
PIH : Proto-Indo-Hittite
IE III : Late PIE
PIE : Proto-Indo-European
EIE : Europes Indo-European
MIE : Modern Indo-European
PGk : Proto-Greek
Gk. : (Ancient) Greek
Phryg. : Phrygian
Thr. : Thracian
Dac. : Dacian
Ven. : Venetic
Lus. : Lusitanian
A.Mac. : Ancient Macedonian
Illy. : Illyrian
Alb. : Albanian
PII :Proto-Indo-Iranian
Ind. : Proto-Indo-Aryan
O.Ind. : Old Indian
Skr. : Sanskrit
Hind. : Hindustani
Hi. : Hindi
Ur. : Urdu
Ira. : Proto-Iranian
Av. : Avestan
O.Pers. : Old Persian
Pers. : Persian
Kur. : Kurdish
Oss. : Ossetian
Kam. : Kamviri
Ita. : Proto-Italic
Osc. : Oscan
Umb. : Umbrian
Lat. : Latin
O.Lat. : Archaic Latin
V.Lat. : Vulgar Latin
L.Lat. : Late Latin
Med.Lat. : Mediaeval Latin
Mod.Lat. : Modern Latin
O.Fr. : Old French
Prov : Provenzal
Gl.-Pt. : Galician-Portuguese
Gal. : Galician
Pt. : Portuguese
Cat. : Catalan
Fr. : French
It. : Italian
Spa. : Spanish
Rom. : Romanian
PAn : Proto-Anatolian
CA : Common Anatolian
Hitt. : Hittite
Luw. : Luwian
Lyc. : Lycian
Pal. : Palaic
Lyd. : Lydian
A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
Indo-European Language Association <http://dnghu.org/>
PGmc. : Pre-Proto-Germanic
Gmc. : Proto-Germanic
Goth. : Gothic
Frank. : Frankish
Sca. : Scandinavian (North Germanic)
O.N. : Old Norse
O.Ice. : Old Icelandic
O.S. : Old Swedish
Nor. : Norwegian
Swe. : Swedish
Da. : Danish
Ice. : Icelandic
Fae. : Faeroese
W.Gmc. : West Germanic
O.E. : Old English (W.Saxon, Mercian)
O.Fris. : Old Frisian
O.H.G. : Old High German
M.L.G. : Middle Low German
M.H.G. : Middle High German
M.Du. : Middle Dutch
Eng : English
Ger. : German
L.Ger. : Low German
Fris. : Frisian
Dutch
Du. : Dutch
Yidd. : Yiddish (Judaeo-German)
BSl. : Balto-Slavic
Bal. : Proto-Baltic
O.Lith. : Old Lithuanian
O.Pruss. : Old Prussian
Lith. : Lithuanian
Ltv. : Latvian
Sla. : Proto-Slavic
O.C.S. : Old Church Slavonic
O.Russ. : Old Russian
O.Pol. : Old Polish
Russ. : Russian
Pol. : Polish
Cz. : Czech
Slo. : Slovenian
Slk. : Slovak
Ukr. : Ukrainian
Bel. : Belarusian
Bul. : Bulgarian
Sr.-Cr. : Serbo-Croatian
Cel. : Proto-Celtic
Gaul. : Gaulish
O.Ir. : Old Irish
Sco. : Scottish Gaelic
Ir. : Irish Gaelic
Bret. : Breton
Cor. : Cornish
O.Welsh : Old Welsh
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. THE INDO-EUROPEAN LANGUAGE FAMILY
1.1.1. The Indo-European
languages are a family of several
hundred languages and dialects,
including most of the major
languages of Europe, as well as
many in Asia. Contemporary
languages in this family include
English, German, French,
Spanish, Portuguese, Hindustani
(i.e., Hindi and Urdu among other
modern dialects), Persian and
Russian. It is the largest family of
languages in the world today, being
spoken by approximately half the worlds population as first language. Furthermore, the majority of the
other half speaks at least one of them as second language.
1.1.2. Romans didnt perceive similarities between Latin and Celtic dialects, but they found obvious
correspondences with Greek. After Roman Grammarian Sextus Pompeius Festus:
Such findings are not striking, though, as Rome was believed to have been originally funded by Trojan
hero Aeneas and, consequently, Latin was derived from Old Greek.
1.1.3. Florentine merchant Filippo Sassetti travelled to the Indian subcontinent, and was among the
first European observers to study the ancient Indian language, Sanskrit. Writing in 1585, he noted some
word similarities between Sanskrit and Italian, e.g. deva/dio, God, sarpa/serpe, snake, sapta/sette,
seven, ashta/otto, eight, nava/nove, nine. This observation is today credited to have
foreshadowed the later discovery of the Indo-European language family.
1.1.4. The first proposal of the possibility of a common origin for some of these languages came from
Dutch linguist and scholar Marcus Zuerius van Boxhorn in 1647. He discovered the similarities among
Indo-European languages, and supposed the existence of a primitive common language which he called
Scythian. He included in his hypothesis Dutch, Greek, Latin, Persian, and German, adding later
Suppum antiqui dicebant, quem nunc supinum dici mus ex Graeco, videlicet pro adspiratione
ponentes <s> litteram, ut idem dicunt, et nos silvas; item sex, et septem.
In dark, countries with a majority of Indo-European
speakers; in light color, countries with Indo-European-
speaking minorities.
A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
Indo-European Language Association <http://dnghu.org/>
Slavic, Celtic and Baltic languages. He excluded languages such as Hebrew from his hypothesis.
However, the suggestions of van Boxhorn did not become widely known and did not stimulate further
research.
1.1.5. On 1686, German linguist Andreas Jger published De Lingua Vetustissima Europae, where he
identified an remote language, possibly spreading from the Caucasus, from which Latin, Greek, Slavic,
Scythian (i.e., Persian) and Celtic (or Celto-Germanic) were derived, namely Scytho-Celtic.
1.1.6. The hypothesis re-appeared in 1786 when Sir William Jones first lectured on similarities
between four of the oldest languages known in his time: Latin, Greek, Sanskrit and Persian:
The Sanskrit language, whatever be its antiquity, is of a wonderful structure; more perfect than the
Greek, more copious than the Latin, and more exquisitely refined than either, yet bear ing to both of
them a stronger affinity, both in the roots of verbs and the forms of grammar, than could
possibly have been produced by accident; so strong indeed, that no philologer could examine them all
three, without believing them to have sprung from some common source, which, perhaps, no
longer exists: there is a similar reason, though not quite so forcible, for supposing that both the
Gothic and the Celtic, though blended with a very different idiom, had the same origin with the
Sanskrit; and the old Persian might be added to the same family
1.1.7. Danish Scholar Rasmus Rask was the first to point out the connection between Old Norwegian
and Gothic on the one hand, and Lithuanian, Slavonic, Greek and Latin on the other. Systematic
comparison of these and other old languages conducted by the young German linguist Franz Bopp
supported the theory, and his Comparative Grammar, appearing between 1833 and 1852, counts as the
starting-point of Indo-European studies as an academic discipline.
1.1.8. The classification of modern Indo-European dialects into languages and dialects is
controversial, as it depends on many factors, such as the pure linguistic ones most of the times being
the least important of them , and also social, economic, political and historical considerations.
However, there are certain common ancestors, and some of them are old well-attested languages (or
language systems), such as Classic Latin for modern Romance languages French, Spanish,
Portuguese, Italian, Romanian or Catalan , Classic Sanskrit for some modern Indo-Aryan languages,
or Classic Greek for Modern Greek.
Furthermore, there are some still older IE dialects, from which these old formal languages were
derived and later systematized. They are, following the above examples, Archaic or Old Latin, Archaic
or Vedic Sanskrit and Archaic or Old Greek, attested in older compositions, inscriptions and inferred
through the study of oral traditions and texts.
And there are also some old related dialects, which help us reconstruct proto-languages, such as
Faliscan for Latino-Faliscan (and with Osco-Umbrian for an older Proto-Italic), the Avestan language
for a Proto-Indo-Iranian or Mycenaean for an older Proto-Greek.
1. Introduction
25
NOTE. Although proto-language groupings for early Indo-European languages may vary depending on different
criteria, they all have the same common origin, the Proto-Indo-European language, which is generally easier to
reconstruct than its dialectal groupings. For example, if we had only some texts of Old French, Old Spanish and
Old Portuguese, Mediaeval Italian and Modern Romanian and Catalan, then Vulgar Latin i.e. the features of the
common language spoken by all of them, not the older, artificial, literary Classical Latin could be easily
reconstructed, but the groupings of the derived dialects not. In fact, the actual groupings of the Romance
languages are controversial, even knowing well enough Archaic, Classic and Vulgar Latin...
1.2. TRADITIONAL VIEWS
1.2.1. In the beginnings of the Indo-European or Indo-Germanic studies using the comparative
grammar, the Indo-European proto-language was reconstructed as a unitary language. For Rask, Bopp
and other Indo-European scholars, it was a search for the Indo-European. Such a language was
supposedly spoken in a certain region between Europe and Asia and at one point in time between ten
thousand and four thousand years ago, depending on the individual theories , and it spread thereafter
and evolved into different languages which in turn had different dialects.
1.2.2. The Stammbaumtheorie or Genealogical Tree Theory states that languages split up in other
languages, each of them in turn split up in others, and so on, like the branches of a tree. For example, a
well known old theory about Indo-European is that, from the Indo-European language, two main
Distribution of language families in the 20
th
century.
A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
Indo-European Language Association <http://dnghu.org/>
groups of dialects known as Centum and Satem
separated so called because of their pronunciation of
the gutturals in Latin and Avestan, as in PIE kmtm,
hundred. From these groups others split up, as
Centum Proto-Germanic, Proto-Italic or Proto-Celtic,
and Satem Proto-Balto-Slavic, Proto-Indo-Iranian,
which developed into present-day Germanic, Romance
and Celtic, Baltic, Slavic, Iranian and Indo-Aryan
languages.
NOTE. The Centum and Satem isogloss is one of the oldest
known phonological differences of Indo-European
languages, and is still used by many to classify them in two
groups, thus disregarding their relevant morphological and
syntactical differences. It is based on a simple vocabulary
comparison; as, from PIE kmtm (possibly earlier
*dkmtm, from dekm, ten), Satem: O.Ind. atm, Av.
satm, Lith. imtas, O.C.S. sto, or Centum: Gk. , Lat.
centum, Goth. hund, O.Ir. cet, etc.
1.2.3. The Wellentheorie or Waves Theory, of J. Schmidt, states that one language is created from
another by the spread of innovations, the way water waves spread when a stone hits the water surface.
The lines that define the extension of the innovations are called isoglosses. The convergence of different
isoglosses over a common territory signals the existence of a new language or dialect. Where isoglosses
from different languages coincide, transition zones are formed.
NOTE. These old theories are based on the hypothesis that there was one common and static Proto-Indo-
European language, and that all features of modern Indo-European languages can be explained in such a unitary
scheme, by classifying them either as innovations or as
archaisms of one old, rigid proto-language. The language
system we propose for the revived Modern Indo-
European is based mainly on that traditionally
reconstructed Proto-Indo-European, not because we
uphold the traditional views, but because we still look for
the immediate common ancestor of modern Indo-
European languages, and it is that old, unitary Indo-
European that scholars had been looking for during the
first decades of Indo-European studies.
Wave model of some of the
interrelationships of the Indo-European
languages, J.P.Mallory and D.Q. Adams.
Modern tree diagram of the IE languages
by Eric Hamp (1990).
1. Introduction
27
1.3. THE THEORY OF THE THREE STAGES
1.3.1. Even some of the first Indo-
Europeanists had noted in their works
the possibility of older origins for the
reconstructed (Late) Proto-Indo-
European, although they didnt dare to
describe those possible older stages of
the language.
1.3.2. Today, a widespread Three-
Stage Theory depicts the Proto-Indo-
European language evolution into
three main historic layers or stages:
1) Indo-European I or IE I, also
called Early PIE, is the hypothetical ancestor of IE II, and probably the oldest stage of the language
that comparative linguistics could help reconstruct using internal reconstruction. There is, however,
no common position as to how it was like or when and where it was spoken.
2) The second stage (3500-3000 BC) corresponds to a time before the separation of Proto-Anatolian
from the common linguistic community where it coexisted with Pre-IE III. That stage of the language
is called Indo-European II or IE II, Middle PIE, or Indo-Hittite. This is identified with the early
Kurgan cultures in the Kurgan Hypothesis framework.
3) The common immediate ancestor of the earliest known IE proto-languages more or less the
same static PIE searched for since the start of Indo-European studies is usually called Late PIE, also
Indo-European III or IE III, often simply
Proto-Indo-European. Its prehistoric
community of speakers is generally
identified with the Yamna or Pit Grave
culture (cf. Ukr. , pit), in the Pontic
Steppe, roughly between 3000-2500 BC.
Pre-Proto-Anatolian speakers are arguably
identified with the already independent
Maykop cultural community.
Expansion of IE 4000BC-1 AD, according to the Kurgan
hypothesis.
Yamna culture ca. 3000 BC, roughly the
time when Late PIE and Proto-Anatolian
were spoken.
A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
Indo-European Language Association <http://dnghu.org/>
NOTE. The development of this theory of three linguistic stages can be traced back to the very origins of Indo-
European studies, firstly as a diffused idea of a non-static language, and later widely accepted as a dynamic
dialectal evolution, already in the 20
th
century, after the discovery of the Anatolian scripts.
1.3.3. Another division has to be made, so that the dialectal evolution and this revival project is
properly understood. Late PIE had at least two main dialectal branches, the Northern (or IE IIIb) and
the Southern (or IE IIIa) ones. Terms like Northwestern PIE are commonly found in academic writings
referring to the Northern Dialect, but we will use them here to name only the northern dialects of
Europe, therefore excluding Tocharian. As far as we know, while speakers of Southern or Graeco-Aryan
dialects (like Proto-Greek and Proto-Indo-Iranian) spread in different directions with the first Late PIE
migrations ca. 2500 BC, speakers of Northern dialects remained still in loose contact in Europe, but for
peoples like Proto-Tocharians who migrated to Asia. That so-called Europes Indo-European the
ancestor of Celtic, Italic, Germanic, Baltic and Slavic dialects is believed to have formed the last
common Indo-European dialect continuum from ca. 2500-2000 BC in Northern Europe.
NOTE 1. On the so-called Northwest Indo-European, see N. Oettinger Grundstzliche berlegungen zum
Nordwest-Indogermanischen in Incontri Linguistici 20 1997, and Zum nordwestindogermanischen Lexikon in
FS Meid 70 1999. See also M. E. Huld in Indo-Europeanization of Northern Europe 1996; Adrados, Bernab,
Mendoza, Manual de Lingstica Indoeuropea, 1998; etc. Europes Indo-European dialects show some common
features, like a general reduction of the 8-case noun inflection system, the -r endings of the middle voice, as well
as the lack (or late development) of satemization. The southern dialects, in turn, show a generalized Augment in
-, a general Aorist formation and an 8-case system apparently also in Proto-Greek.
Spread of Late PIE dialects and Common Anatolian by ca. 2000 BC.
1. Introduction
29
NOTE 2. European dialects like Balto-Slavic and, to some extent, Italic, either because of general PIE innovative
or archaic trends that only they maintained, or because of their original situation within the PIE dialectal
territories in relation with the origin of the innovations or just because they remained in contact with Southern
Indo-European dialects after the first PIE split (e.g. through the Scythian or Iranian expansions) show features
usually identified with Indo-Iranian, as an 8-case noun declension and phonetic satemization, while having
morphological features clearly common to Germanic and Celtic dialects, as the verbal system.
NOTE 3. The term Indo-European itself now current in English literature, was coined in 1813 by the British
scholar Sir Thomas Young, although at that time there was no consensus as to the naming of the recently
discovered language family. Among the names suggested were indo-germanique (C. Malte-Brun, 1810),
Indoeuropean (Th. Young, 1813), japetisk (Rasmus C. Rask, 1815), indisch-teutsch (F. Schmitthenner, 1826),
sanskritisch (Wilhelm von Humboldt, 1827), indokeltisch (A. F. Pott, 1840), arioeuropeo (G. I. Ascoli, 1854),
Aryan (F. M. Mller, 1861), aryaque (H. Chave, 1867), etc.
In English, Indo-German was used by J. C. Prichard in 1826 although he preferred Indo-European. In French,
use of indo-europen was established by A. Pictet (1836). In German literature, Indo-Europisch was used by
Franz Bopp since 1835, while the term Indo-Germanisch had already been introduced by Julius von Klapproth in
1823, intending to include the northernmost and the southernmost of the familys branches, as it were as an
abbreviation of the full listing of involved languages that had been common in earlier literature, opening the doors
to ensuing fruitless discussions whether it should not be Indo-Celtic, or even Tocharo-Celtic.
Indo-European dialects ca. 500 BC.
A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
Indo-European Language Association <http://dnghu.org/>
Indo-European dialects ca. 500 AD.
Indo-European dialects ca. 1500 AD.
1. Introduction
31
1.4. THE PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN URHEIMAT OR HOMELAND
1.4.1. The search for the Urheimat or
Homeland of the prehistoric Proto-Indo-
Europeans has developed as an archaeological
quest along with the linguistic research looking
for the reconstruction of that proto-language.
1.4.2. The Kurgan hypothesis was
introduced by Marija Gimbutas in 1956 in order
to combine archaeology with linguistics in
locating the origins of the Proto-Indo-Europeans.
She named the set of cultures in question
Kurgan after their distinctive burial mounds and
traced their diffusion into Europe.
1.4.3. According to her hypothesis, PIE speakers were probably a nomadic tribe of the Pontic-Caspian
steppe that expanded in successive stages of the Kurgan culture and three successive waves of
expansion during the 3
rd
millennium BC:
Kurgan I, Dnieper/Volga region, earlier half of the 4
th
millennium BC. Apparently evolving from
cultures of the Volga basin, subgroups include the Samara and Seroglazovo cultures.
Kurgan IIIII, latter half of the 4
th
millennium BC. Includes the Sredny Stog culture and the
Maykop culture of the northern Caucasus. Stone circles, early two-wheeled chariots,
anthropomorphic stone stelae of deities.
Kurgan IV or Pit Grave culture, first half of the 3
rd
millennium BC, encompassing the entire steppe
region from the Ural to Romania.
o Wave 1, predating Kurgan I, expansion from the lower Volga to the Dnieper, leading to
coexistence of Kurgan I and the Cucuteni culture. Repercussions of the migrations extend as far
as the Balkans and along the Danube to the Vina and Lengyel cultures in Hungary.
o Wave 2, mid 4
th
millennium BC, originating in the Maykop culture and resulting in advances of
kurganized hybrid cultures into northern Europe around 3000 BC Globular Amphora
culture, Baden culture, and ultimately Corded Ware culture.
o Wave 3, 3000-2800 BC, expansion of the Pit Grave culture beyond the steppes; appearance of
characteristic pit graves as far as the areas of modern Romania, Bulgaria and eastern Hungary.
Photo of a Kurgan ( Archaeology Magazine).
A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
Indo-European Language Association <http://dnghu.org/>
I. ARCHEOGENETICS AND INDO-EUROPEAN MIGRATIONS
Cavalli-Sforza and Alberto Piazza argue that Renfrew (v.i.) and Gimbutas reinforce rather than
contradict each other, stating that genetically speaking, peoples of the Kurgan steppe descended at
least in part from people of the Middle Eastern Neolithic who immigrated there from Turkey.
NOTE. The genetic record cannot yield any direct information as to the language spoken by these groups. The
current interpretation of genetic data suggests a strong genetic continuity in Europe; specifically, studies of
mtDNA by Bryan Sykes show that about 80% of the genetic stock of Europeans originated in the Paleolithic.
Spencer Wells suggests that the origin, distribution and age of the R1a1 haplotype points to an
ancient migration, possibly corresponding to the spread by the Kurgan people in their expansion across
the Eurasian steppe around 3000 BC, stating that there is nothing to contradict this model, although
the genetic patterns do not provide clear support either.
NOTE. R1a1 is most prevalent in Poland, Russia, and Ukraine, and is also observed in Pakistan, India and
central Asia. R1a1 is largely confined east of the Vistula gene barrier and drops considerably to the west. The
Hypothetical Homeland or Urheimat of the first PIE speakers, from 4500 BC onwards. The
Yamna (Pit Grave) culture lasted from ca. 3600 till 2200 BC. In this time the first wagons
appeared. People were buried with their legs flexed, a position which remained typical for the
Indo-Europeans for a long time. The burials were covered with a mound, a kurgan. During this
period, from 3600 till 3000 IE II split up into Pre-IE III and Pre-Proto-Anatolian. From ca.3000
B.C on, Late PIE dialects began to differentiate and spread by 2500 westward (Europes Indo-
European), southward (Proto-Greek) and eastward (Proto-Aryan, Pre-Proto-Tocharian).
1. Introduction
33
spread of Y-chromosome DNA haplogroup
R1a1 has been associated with the spread
of the Indo-European languages too. The
mutations that characterize haplogroup
R1a occurred ~10,000 years bp.
Haplogroup R1a1, whose lineage is
thought to have originated in the
Eurasian Steppes north of the Black
and Caspian Seas, is therefore
associated with the Kurgan culture, as
well as with the postglacial
Ahrensburg culture which has been suggested to have spread the gene originally.
The present-day population of R1b haplotype, with extremely high peaks in Western Europe and
measured up to the eastern confines of Central Asia, are believed to be the descendants of a refugium in
the Iberian peninsula (Portugal and Spain) at the Last Glacial Maximum, where the haplogroup may
have achieved genetic homogeneity. As conditions eased with the Allerd Oscillation in about 12,000
BC, descendants of this group migrated and eventually recolonised all of Western Europe, leading to the
dominant position of R1b in variant degrees from Iberia to Scandinavia, so evident in haplogroup maps.
NOTE 1. High concentrations of Mesolithic or late Paleolithic YDNA haplogroups of types R1b (typically well
above 35%) and I (up to 25%), are thought to derive ultimately of the robust Eurasiatic Cro Magnoid homo
sapiens of the Aurignacian culture, and the subsequent gracile leptodolichomorphous people of the Gravettian
culture that entered Europe from the Middle East 20,000 to 25,000 years ago, respectively.
NOTE 2. The most common
subclade is R1b1b2a, that has a
maximum in Frisia. It may have
originated towards the end of the last
ice age, or perhaps more or less 7000
BC, possibly in the northern European
mainland and a close match of the
presentday distribution of S21 and
the territorial pattern of the Eastern
Corded Ware cultures and the Single
Grave cultures has been observed.
Dupuy and his colleagues proposed
the ancestors of Scandinavian men from Haplogroup Hg P*(xR1a) or R1b (Y-DNA) to have brought Ahrensburg
culture and stressed genetic similarity with Germany.
A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
Indo-European Language Association <http://dnghu.org/>
II. KURGAN HYPOTHESIS & PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN LANGUAGES
ARCHAEOLOGY (Kurgan Hypothesis) LINGUISTICS (Three-Stage Theory)
ca. 4500-4000 BC. Sredny Stog, Dnieper-Donets
and Sarama cultures, domestication of the horse.
Pre-PIE is spoken, probably somewhere in the
Pontic-Caspian Steppe.
ca. 4000-3500 BC. The Yamna culture, the kurgan
builders, emerges in the steppe, and the Maykop
culture in northern Caucasus.
Early PIE or IE I, the earliest Proto-Indo-
European attainable by using the internal
reconstruction method of comparative grammar.
ca. 3500-3000 BC. The Yamna culture is at its
peak, with stone idols, two-wheeled proto-chariots,
animal husbandry, permanent settlements and
hillforts, subsisting on agriculture and fishing, along
rivers. Contact of the Yamna culture with late
Neolithic Europe cultures results in kurganized
Globular Amphora and Baden cultures. The Maykop
culture shows the earliest evidence of the beginning
Bronze Age, and bronze weapons and artifacts are
introduced.
Middle PIE is spoken. Pre-IE III and Pre-Proto-
Anatolian dialects evolve in different communities
but presumably still in contact, until the later
becomes isolated south of the Caucasus and has no
more contacts with the linguistic innovations of
common Late PIE.
ca. 3000-2500 BC. The Yamna culture extends
over the entire Pontic steppe. The Corded Ware culture
extends from the Rhine to the Volga, corresponding to
the latest phase of Indo-European unity. Different
cultures disintegrate, still in loose contact, enabling
the spread of technology.
Late PIE is spoken in different dialects, at least
a Southern and a Northern one. Dialectal
communities remain still in contact, enabling the
spread of phonetic and morphological innovations,
as well as early loan words. Proto-Anatolian,
spoken in Asia Minor.
ca. 2500-2000 BC. The Bronze Age reaches
Central Europe with the Beaker culture of Northern
Indo-Europeans. Indo-Iranians settle north of the
Caspian in the Sintashta-Petrovka and later the
Andronovo culture.
The breakup of the southern IE dialects is
complete. Proto-Greek spoken in the Balkans;
Proto-Indo-Iranian in Central Asia; Europes Indo-
European in Northern Europe; Common Anatolian
in Anatolia.
ca. 2000-1500 BC. The chariot is invented, leading
to the split and rapid spread of Iranians and other
peoples from the Andronovo culture and the Bactria-
Margiana Complex over much of Central Asia,
Northern India, Iran and Eastern Anatolia. Greek
Darg Ages and flourishing of the Hittite Empire. Pre-
Celtics Unetice culture has an active metal industry.
Indo-Iranian splits up in two main dialects, Indo-
Aryan and Iranian. European proto-dialects
like Germanic, Celtic, Italic, Baltic and Slavic
differentiate from each other. A Proto-Greek dialect,
Mycenaean, is already written in Linear B script.
Anatolian languages like Hittite and Luwian are
also written.
ca. 1500-1000 BC. The Nordic Bronze Age sees the
rise of the Germanic Urnfield and the Celtic Hallstatt
cultures in Central Europe, introducing the Iron Age.
Italic peoples move to the Italian Peninsula. Rigveda is
composed. The Hittite Kingdoms and the Mycenaean
civilization decline.
Germanic, Celtic, Italic, Baltic and Slavic are
already different proto-languages, developing in
turn different dialects. Iranian and other related
southern dialects expand through military
conquest, and Indo-Aryan spreads in the form of its
sacred language, Sanskrit.
ca. 1000-500 BC. Northern Europe enters the Pre-
Roman Iron Age. Early Indo-European Kingdoms and
Empires in Eurasia. In Europe, Classical Antiquity
begins with the flourishing of the Greek peoples.
Foundation of Rome.
Celtic dialects spread over Western Europe,
German dialects to the south of Jutland. Italic
languages attested in the Italian Peninsula. Greek
and Old Italic alphabets appear. Late Anatolian
dialects. Cimmerian, Scythian and Sarmatian in
Asia, Paleo-Balkan languages in the Balkans.
1. Introduction
35
1.5. OTHER LINGUISTIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL THEORIES
1.5.1. A common development of new hypotheses has been to revise the Three-Stage assumption. It is
actually not something new, but the come back to more traditional views, reinterpreting the new
findings of the Hittite scripts, trying to insert Anatolian into the old, static PIE concept.
1.5.2. The most known new alternative theory concerning PIE is the Glottalic theory. It assumes
that Proto-Indo-European was pronounced more or less like Armenian, i.e. instead of PIE p, b, b
h
, the
pronunciation would have been *p, *p, *b, and the same with the other two voiceless-voiced-voiced
aspirated series of consonants. The IE Urheimat would have been then located in the surroundings of
Anatolia, especially near Lake Urmia, in northern Iran, hence the archaism of Anatolian dialects and
the glottalics still found in Armenian.
NOTE. Those linguistic findings are supported
by Th. Gamkredlize-V. Ivanov (1990: The early
history of Indo-European languages, Scientific
American, where early Indo-European
vocabulary deemed of southern regions is
examined, and similarities with Semitic and
Kartvelian languages are also brought to light.
1.5.3. Alternative theories include:
I. The European Homeland thesis
maintains that the common origin of the IE
languages lies in Europe. These theses are more or less driven by Archeological or Linguistic findings.
NOTE. It has been traditionally located in 1) Lithuania and the surrounding areas, by R.G. Latham (1851) and
Th. Poesche (1878: Die Arier. Ein Beitrag zur historischen Anthropologie, Jena); 2) Scandinavia, by K.Penka
(1883: Origines ariacae, Viena); 3) Central Europe, by G. Kossinna (1902: Die Indogermanische Frage
archologisch beantwortet, Zeitschrift fr Ethnologie, 34, pp. 161-222), P.Giles (1922: The Aryans, New York),
and by linguist/archaeologist G. Childe (1926: The Aryans. A Study of Indo-European Origins, London).
a. The Old European or Alteuropisch Theory compares some old European vocabulary
(especially river names), which would be older than the spread of Late PIE dialects through Northern
Europe. It points out the possibility of an older, pre-IE III spread of IE, either of IE II or I or maybe
some other Pre-IE dialect. It is usually related to the PCT and Renfrews NDT.
b. The Paleolithic Continuity Theory posits that the advent of IE languages should be linked to
the arrival of Homo sapiens in Europe and Asia from Africa in the Upper Paleolithic. The PCT proposes
a continuated presence of Pre-IE and non-IE peoples and languages in Europe from Paleolithic times
and allowing for minor invasions and infiltrations of local scope, mainly during the last three millennia.
Distribution of haplotypes R1b (light color) for
Eurasiatic Paleolithic and R1a (dark color) for Yamna
expansion; black represents other haplogroups.
A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
Indo-European Language Association <http://dnghu.org/>
NOTE. There are some research papers concerning the PCT available at <http://www.continuitas.com/>. Also,
the PCT could in turn be connected with Frederik Kortlandts Indo-Uralic and Altaic studies
<http://kortlandt.nl/publications/> although they could also be inserted in Gimbutas early framework.
c. This is, in turn, related to the theories of a
Neolithic revolution causing the peacefully
spreading of an older pre-IE language into Europe
from Asia Minor from around 7000 BC, with the
advance of farming. It proposes that the dispersal
(discontinuity) of Proto-Indo-Europeans originated
in Neolithic Anatolia.
NOTE. Reacting to criticism, Renfrew by 1999 revised
his proposal to the effect of taking a pronounced Indo-
Hittite position. Renfrews revised views place only Pre-
Proto-Indo-European in 7th millennium BC Anatolia,
proposing as the homeland of Proto-Indo-European
proper the Balkans around 5000 BC, explicitly identified as the Old European culture proposed by Gimbutas.
As of 2005, Colin Renfrew seems to support the PCT designs and the usefulness of the Paleolithic assumptions.
He co-authored a paper concluding: Our finding lends weight to a proposed Paleolithic ancestry for modern
Europeans The above quotation coming as results of archaeogenetic research on mtaDNA where 150 x greater N1a
frequency was found. The first European farmers are descended from a European population who were present in
Europe since the Paleolithic and not coming as a wave of Neolithic migration as proposed in RenfrewS NDT.
II. Another hypothesis, contrary to the European ones, also mainly driven today by a nationalistic
view, traces back the origin of PIE to Vedic Sanskrit, postulating that it is very pure, and that the origin
can thus be traced back to the Indus Valley Civilization of ca. 3000 BC.
NOTE. Such Pan-Sanskritism was common among early Indo-Europeanists, as Schlegel, Young, A. Pictet (1877:
Les origines indoeuropens, Paris) or Schmidt (who preferred Babylonia), but are now mainly supported by those
who consider Sanskrit almost equal to Late Proto-Indo-European. For more on this, see S. Misra (1992: The
Aryan Problem: A Linguistic Approach, Delhi), Elsts Update on the Aryan Invasion Debate (1999), followed up
by S.G. Talageris The Rigveda: A Historical Analysis (2000), both part of Indigenous Indo-Aryan viewpoint by
N. Kazanas, the Out of India theory, with a framework dating back to the times of the Indus Valley Civilization.
III. The Black Sea deluge theory dates the origins of the IE dialects expansion in the genesis of the Sea
of Azov, ca. 5600 BC, which in turn would be related to the Bible Noahs flood, as it would have
remained in oral tales until its writing down in the Hebrew Tanakh. This date is generally considered as
rather early for the PIE spread.
Homeland question (mixing Neolithic and
Kurgan hypothesis), J.P.Mallory & D.Q. Adams
1. Introduction
37
NOTE. W.Ryan and W.Pitman published evidence that a massive flood through the Bosporus occurred about
5600 BC, when the rising Mediterranean spilled over a rocky sill at the Bosporus. The event flooded 155,000 km
of land and significantly expanded the Black Sea shoreline to the north and west. This has been connected with
the fact that some Early Modern scholars based on Genesis 10:5 have assumed that the Japhetite languages
(instead of the Semitic ones) are rather the direct descendants of the Adamic language, having separated before
the confusion of tongues, by which also Hebrew was affected. That was claimed by Blessed Anne Catherine
Emmerich (18
th
c.), who stated in her private revelations that most direct descendants of the Adamic language
were Bactrian, Zend and Indian languages, related to her Low German dialect. It is claimed that Emmerich
identified this way Adamic language as Early PIE.
1.6. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LANGUAGES
1.6.1. Many higher-level relationships between PIE and other language families have been proposed.
But these speculative connections are highly controversial. Perhaps the most widely accepted proposal
is of an Indo-Uralic family, encompassing PIE and Proto-Uralic, a language from which Hunarian,
Finnish, Estonian, Saami and a number of other languages belong. The evidence usually cited in favor
of this is the proximity of the proposed Urheimaten of the two proto-languages, the typological
similarity between the two languages, and a number of apparent shared morphemes.
NOTE. Other proposals, further back in time (and correspondingly less accepted), model PIE as a branch of
Indo-Uralic with a Caucasian substratum; 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 Greenbergs Eurasiatic); etc.
1.6.2. Indo-Uralic or Uralo-Indo-European is a hypothetical language family consisting of Indo-
European and Uralic (i.e. Finno-Ugric and Samoyedic). Most linguists still consider this theory
speculative and its evidence insufficient to conclusively prove genetic affiliation.
NOTE. Dutch linguist Frederik Kortlandt supports a model of Indo-Uralic in which the original Indo-Uralic
speakers lived north of the Caspian Sea, and Proto-Indo-Europeans began as a group that branched off westward
from there to come into geographic proximity with the Northwest Caucasian languages, absorbing a Northwest
Caucasian lexical blending before moving farther westward to a region north of the Black Sea where their language
settled into canonical Proto-Indo-European.
1.6.3. The most common arguments in favour of a relationship between Early PIE and Uralic are based
on seemingly common elements of morphology, such as the pronominal roots *m- for first person, *t-
for second person, *i- for third person; case markings accusative *-m, ablative/partitive *-ta;
interrogative/relative pronouns *k
w
- who?, which?, *j- who, which to signal relative clauses; and a
common SOV word order. Other, less obvious correspondences are suggested, such as the Indo-
European plural marker -es (or -s in the accusative plural -m-s) and its Uralic counterpart *-t. This
same word-final assibilation of *-t to *-s may also be present in PIE second-person singular -s in
A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
Indo-European Language Association <http://dnghu.org/>
comparison with Uralic second-person singular *-t. Compare, within Indo-European itself, -s second-
person singular injunctive, -si second-person singular present indicative, -tHa second-person singular
perfect, -te second-person plural present indicative, tu you (singular) nominative, tei to you
(singular) enclitic pronoun. These forms suggest that the underlying second-person marker in Indo-
European may be *t and that the *u found in forms such as tu was originally an affixal particle.
NOTE. The problem with lexical evidence is to weed out words due to borrowing, because Uralic languages have
been in contact with Indo-European languages for millenia, and consequently borrowed many words from them.
Meaning Early PIE Proto-Uralic
I, me me, me (Acc.), mene, my (Gen.)
*mun, *mina, I
you (sg) tu (Nom.), twe (Acc.), tewe your (Gen.)
*tun, *tina
First person singular -m
*-m
First person plural -me
*-me
Second person singular -s (active), -tHa (perfect)
*-t
Second person plural -te
*-te
Demonstrative so, this, he/she (animate nom)
*a (3
rd
person singular)
Interrogative pronoun (An.) k
w
i-, who?, what?; k
w
o-, who?, what?
*ken, who?, *ku-, who?
Relative pronoun jo-
*-ja (nomen agentis)
Accusative -m
*-m
Ablative/partitive -od
*-ta
Nominative/Accusative pl. -es (Nom. pl.), -m-s (Acc. pl.)
*-t
Oblique plural -i (pronominal pl., cf. we-i- we, to-i- those)
*-i
Dual -H
*-k
Stative -s- (aorist); -es-, -t (stative substantive)
*-ta
Negative particle nei, ne
*ei- [negative verb] , *ne
to give deh
3
-
*toHe-
to moisten,
water
wed-, to wet, wodr-, water
*weti, water
water mesg-, dip under water, dive
*muke-, wash
to assign,
name
nem-, to assign, to allot, h
1
nomn-, name
*nimi, name
metal h
2
weseh
2
-, gold
*wake, some metal
trade mei-, exchange
*miHe-, give, sell
fish (s)k
w
alo-, large fish
*kala, fish
sister-in-law galou-, husband's sister
*kl, sister-in-law
much polu-, much
*palj, thick, much
1. Introduction
39
1.7. INDO-EUROPEAN DIALECTS OF EUROPE
SCHLEICHERS FABLE: FROM PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN TO MODERN ENGLISH
The so-called Schleicher's fable is a poem composed in PIE, published by August Schleicher in 1868, originally
named The Sheep and the Horses. It is written here in the different reconstructible IE dialects for comparison.
More information and changes at <http://dnghu.org/en/indoeuropean-schleicher-fable/>
The immediate parent dialect of each proto-language is enclosed in parentheses.
Languages of Europe. The black line divides the zones traditionally (or politically) considered inside
the European subcontinent. Northern dialects are all but Greek and Kurdish (Iranian); Armenian is
usually considered a Graeco-Aryan dialect, while Albanian is usually classified as a Northern one.
Numbered inside the map, non-Indo-European languages: 1) Uralic languages; 2) Turkic languages; 3)
Basque; 4) Maltese; 5) Caucasian languages.
A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
Indo-European Language Association <http://dnghu.org/>
Indo-Hittite (IE I), 3500 BC Common Anatolian (PAn), 2500 BC Ioropes IE (IE IIIb), 2500 BC
H
3
owis h
1
ekws-k
w
e. Howis ekws-k
w
e. Owis ekws-k
w
e.
H
3
owis, k
w
esjo wlh
1
neh
2
ne h
1
est, Howis, k
w
esjo wlneh ne est, Owis, k
w
esjo wln ne esL,
h
1
ekwoms spekt, ekwoms spekt, ekwoms spekt,
h
1
oinom crh
3
m wog
h
om wg
h
ontm, oikom grrm wogom wgontm, oinom g
w
rm wog
h
om wg
h
ontm,
h
1
oinom-k
w
e megeh
2
m b
h
orom, oikom-k
w
e megehm borom, oinom-k
w
e megm b
h
orom,
h
1
oinom-k
w
e d
h
h
1
g
h
monm h
1
oh
1
ku
b
h
rontm.
oikom-k
w
e dgmonm oku
brontm.
oinom-k
w
e d
h
g
h
monm k
b
h
rontm.
H
3
owis nu h
1
kwob
h
jos weuk
w
t: Howis nu kwobos wk
w
t: Owis nu kwob
h
os weuk
w
t:
Krd h
2
g
h
nutoi h
1
mo, Krd xgnutor mo, Krd g
h
nutoi mo,
h
1
ekwoms h
2
gontm wih
1
rom
wdnLeI.
ekwoms xgontm wirom
wdnt.
ekwoms gontm wrom
wdnLeI.
H
1
ekws Lu weuk
w
nL: KIud
h
, h
3
owi! Ekws tu weuk
w
nt: KIud, howi! Ekws Lu weuk
w
nL: KIud
h
, owi!
krd h
2
g
h
nutoi nsmi wdntb
h
jos: krd hegnutor nsm wdntbos: krd g
h
nutoi nsmi wdntb
h
jos:
h
2
ner, potis, h
3
owjom-r wlh
1
neh
2
m hner, potis, howjom-r wlnehm ner, potis, owjom-r wlnm
sweb
h
i g
wh
ermm westrom k
w
rneuLI. swebi cermm wstrom k
w
rndI. seb
h
i g
wh
ermm westrom k
w
rneuLI.
H
3
owjom-k
w
e wlhneh
2
ne h
1
esti. Howjom-k
w
e wlneh ne esti. Owjom-k
w
e wln ne esLI.
Tod kkluwos h
3
owis h
2
egrom b
h
ugt. Tod kkluwos howis hegrom bugt. Tod kkluwos owis agrom b
h
ugt.
Proto-Indo-Iranian (IE IIIa), 2500 BC Proto-Greek (IE IIIa), 2500 BC Proto-Celtic (EIE), 1000 BC
Awis aws-ka. Owis ekwoi-k
w
e. Owis ek
w
oi-k
w
e.
Awis, kasja wrn nu sL, wis, k
w
eho wln ne sL, Owis, k
w
esjo wln ne esL,
akwams spat, ekwos spekt, ek
w
os spekt,
aikam grm wag
h
am wg
h
antm, oiwom k
wh
rum wok
h
om wek
h
ontm, oinom barm woxom wxontam,
aikam-ka mag
h
am b
h
aram, oiwom-k
w
e megm p
h
orom, oinom-k
w
e megam borom,
aikam-ka g
h
umunum u
b
h
arantm.
oiwom-k
w
e k
h
t
h
monm ku
p
h
rontm.
oinom-k
w
e dxoniom ku
berontam.
Awis nu wab
h
jas waukat: wis nu kwop
h
os weuk
w
et: Owis nu k
w
obos weuk
w
t:
rd g
h
nutai mai, Krd k
h
nutoi moi, KrId uxnutor mai,
awams aantam wram wdnLuI. ekwoms gontm wrom wdntei. ek
w
os gontom wrom widunLI.
ws Lu uwuwkunL: rud
h
avi! kwoi tu wewek
w
onL: KIuL
h
, owi! Ek
w
oi tu wewk
w
nL: KIudi, owI!
rd g
h
nutai nsmi wdntb
h
jas: krd gnutoi nsmi wdntp
h
os: krid xnutor ansmi wdantbjos:
nar, patis, awjam-r wrnm anr, potis, owjom-r wlnm ner, otis, owjom-ar wlnm
swab
h
i g
h
armm wastram krnuuLI. sep
h
i k
wh
ermm westrom k
w
rneuLI. sebi g
w
ermm westrom k
w
arneuti.
Awjam-ka wrn nu usLI. Owjom-k
w
e wln ne esti. Owjom-k
w
e wln ne esLI.
Tat ruwas awis aram b
h
ugat. Tot kkluwos owis agrom p
h
uget. Tod kklowos owis agrom bugt.
1. Introduction
41
Proto-Italic (EIE), 1000 BC Pre-Proto-Germanic (EIE), 1000 BC Common Tocharian (PToch), 1000 BC
Owis ekwoi-k
w
e. Awiz exwaz-x
w
e. Owi jukwe-ke.
Owis, k
w
esjo wIn ne est, Awiz, h
w
es wuIn ne est, Owi, kuse wIn ne es,
ekwos spekt, ehwanz spext, jukwes spkt,
oinom grwm woxom wxontem, ainan karn wagan wganun, enem karm wakm wkantm,
oinom-k
w
e megam orom, ainan-x
w
e mekon baran, enem-ke mkm parm,
oinom-k
w
e xomonem ku
erontem.
ainan-x
w
e gmunun xu branun. enem-ke tkamnam ku prantm.
Owis nu kwoos weuk
w
t: Awiz nu xwamaz weux
w
: Owi n jkwebos wukt:
Kord axnutor mei, HurL ugnuai mei, Krt gntai me,
ekwos gontom wrom wdentei. exwanz kanun weran wtan. jukwes kunLun wirem witsante.
Ekwoi tu wewk
w
nL: KIu, owi! Exwaz wewx
w
unL: Hlud, awi! Jukwe t wukunL: KIuLi, ow!
kord axnutor ensmi wdentos: hurt knuai unsm wtunmaz: kurL knete ansme wtntbe:
ner, potis, owjom-or wInm ner, faiz, awjan-uur wuInn nr, pats, owjp-ur wInm
sei g
h
ermm westrom k
w
orneuLI. sibi warmn westhran h
w
urneuI. spi srmam wstram krnuti.
Owjom-k
w
e wIn ne esti. Awjan-x
w
e wuIn ne IsLI. Owjp-ke wIn nu esti.
Tud kkluwos owis agrom ugt. at hxluwaz awiz akran buk. T kukIewe owI kre bekt.
Proto-Armenian (?), 1 AD Proto-Slavic (EIE), 500 AD Proto-Baltic (EIE), 500 AD
HovII wuI-k
h
e. Ovs esv-e. Avis asvai-ke.
Hovih, k
h
ehjo guIunu ne s(L
h
), Ovs, eso vInu ne juzL, Avis, kaso vlno ne ast,
woI sp
h
ek
h
e(t
h
), esva speset, asvus spekt,
enam erkm wo won, in ur voz vzt, uInum ur vuum vunLIm,
enam-k
h
e mek bor, in-e meu bor, ainam-ke meum baram,
enam-k
h
e zmon uu bron. in-e mon as brL. ainam-ke zmonam uoku brantim.
Hovih nu woboh gojk
h
e(t
h
): Ovs n svom vjut: Avis nu svamas vjaukt:
Sart gnut
h
e me, Srd uznuL m, Sird gnutai mai,
wuI ukont
h
gar gtant
h
i. esv gt vir vidtI. asvai gantim viram vdintei.
woI t
h
u gojk
h
: Lud, hovi! Esva tu vjut: SIud, ove! Asvus tu vjaukunL: Slud, avi!
Sart gnut
h
oi asm gtan(t
h
)bos: srd uznuL smi vidLm: Ird gnutai insmi vdintmas:
a(n)r, p
h
ot
h
is, owj-ar glanam ner, pods, vjem-r vIn ner, pats, avjam-ir vlnom
(k)IbI erm gesthr k
h
arnojt
h
I. sbI germ vestr rnjuL. sebi garmm vestram kirnjauti.
Hovj-k
h
e glana ne est
h
i. vjem-e vInu ne juzL. Avjam-ke vlno ne asti.
Da k
h
k
h
lugah hovih akr buke(t
h
). To ssluv ovs agr bugL. Ta ssluvas avis agram bugt.
Translation: The Sheep and the Horses. A sheep that had no wool saw horses, one pulling a heavy
wagon, one carrying a big load, and one carrying a man quickly. The sheep said to the horses: My heart
pains me, seeing a man driving horses. The horses said: Listen, sheep, our hearts pain us when we see
this: a man, the master, makes the wool of the sheep into a warm garment for himself. And the sheep has no
wool. Having heard this, the sheep fled into the plain.
A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
Indo-European Language Association <http://dnghu.org/>
1.7.1. NORTHERN INDO-EUROPEAN DIALECTS
I. EUROPES INDO-EUROPEAN
The Northwestern Proto-Indo-European dialect, or Europes Indo-European, was spoken in the
European Subcontinent between ca. 2500-2000 BC, until it evolved into Proto-Celtic, Proto-Italic,
Proto-Germanic, and Proto-Balto-Slavic. Its original common location is usually traced back to some
place to the East of the Rhine, to the North of the Alps and the Carpathian Mountains, to the South of
Scandinavia and to the East of the Eastern European Lowlands or Russian Plain, not beyond Moscow.
The Corded Ware complex of
cultures traditionally
represents for many scholars
the arrival of the first speakers
of Northern Dialects in central
Europe, coming from the
Yamna culture. The
archaeological complex dates
from about 3.000-2.000 BC.
The Globular Amphorae
culture may be slightly earlier,
but the relation between these
two cultures remains unclear.
Evolution of PIH laryngeals in
EIE include vowel colourization and compensatory lengthening, many of them common to Late PIE:
PIH H
1
, the neutral laryngeal: h
1
aa, h
1
ee, h
1
oo; ah
1
, eh
1
, oh
1
.
PIH H
2
, the a-colouring laryngeal: h
2
aa, h
2
ea, h
2
oa; ah
2
, eh
2
.
PIH H
3
, the o-colouring laryngeal: h
3
eo, h
3
oo; eh
3
, oh
3
.
PIE (PIH interconsonantal -H-) a, as in PIH ph
2
tr EIE patr (cf. PII pitr)
PIH rHr, lHl, nHn, mHm; also, iH, uH.
PIH H before consonants : cf. PIH h
1
dnts, EIE dnts (cf. PGk odnts), tooth; PIH
h
2
str, EIE str (cf. PGk astr), etc.
NOTE. There are many variations in the laryngeal theories proposed by scholars, who reconstruct from just one
(Szemernyi) to eight (Puhvel) or nine (Adrados); a general reconstruction of three laryngeals is commonly
accepted for its simplicity and wide acceptance today. For more on this see Appendix II.3, The Laryngeal Theory.
Europe 2500-2000 BC. The Proto-Germanic homeland is traced
back to Jutland and southern Scandinavia; present-day West
Germany was the homeland for Proto-Celtic and Proto-Italic
speakers; the Eastern zone corresponds to Balto-Slavic speakers.
1. Introduction
43
A. GERMANIC
The Germanic languages form one
of the branches of the Indo-European
language family. The largest Germanic
languages are English and German, with
ca. 340 and some 120 million native
speakers, respectively. Other significant
languages include a number Low
Germanic dialects (like Dutch) and the
Scandinavian languages.
Their common ancestor is Proto-
Germanic, probably still spoken in the mid-1
st
millennium B.C. in Iron Age Northern Europe, since its
separation from an earlier Pre-Proto-Germanic, a dialect of Europes Indo-European branch dated
ca. 1000 BC. The succession of archaeological horizons suggests that before their language
differentiated into the individual Germanic branches the Proto-Germanic speakers lived in southern
Scandinavia and along the coast from the Netherlands in the west to the Vistula in the east around 750
BC. Early Germanic dialects enter history with the Germanic peoples who settled in northern Europe
along the borders of the Roman Empire from the 2
nd
century.
NOTE. A few surviving inscriptions in a runic script
from Scandinavia dated to ca. 200 are thought to
represent a later stage of Proto-Norse; according to
Bernard Comrie, it represents a Late Common
Germanic which followed the Proto-Germanic stage.
The earliest evidence of the Germanic branch is
recorded from names in the 1
st
century by Tacitus,
and in a single instance in the 2
nd
century BC, on
the Negau helmet. From roughly the 2
nd
century
AD, some speakers of early Germanic dialects
developed the Elder Futhark. Early runic
inscriptions are also largely limited to personal names, and difficult to interpret. The Gothic language
was written in the Gothic alphabet developed by Bishop Ulfilas for his translation of the Bible in the 4
th
century. Later, Christian priests and monks who spoke and read Latin in addition to their native
Germanic tongue began writing the Germanic languages with slightly modified Latin letters, but in
Scandinavia, runic alphabets remained in common use throughout the Viking Age.
Expansion of Germanic tribes 1200 BC - 1 AD.
Spread of Germanic languages today.
A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
Indo-European Language Association <http://dnghu.org/>
NOTE. W. P. Lehmann (1961) considered that Jacob Grimms First Germanic Sound Shift, or Grimms Law
and Verner's Law, which pertained mainly to consonants and were considered for a good many decades to have
generated Proto-Germanic, were Pre-Proto-Germanic, and that the upper boundary was the fixing of the accent,
or stress, on the root syllable of a word, typically the first. Proto-Indo-European had featured a moveable pitch
accent comprising an alternation of high and low tones as well as stress of position determined by a set of rules
based on the lengths of the word's syllables.
The fixation of the stress led to sound changes in unstressed syllables. For Lehmann, the lower boundary was
the dropping of final -a or -e in unstressed syllables; for example, PIE woid- >, Goth. wait, knows (the > and <
signs in linguistics indicate a genetic descent). Antonsen (1965) agreed with Lehmann about the upper boundary
but later found runic evidence that the -a was not dropped: Gmc. kwakraz ... wraita, I wakraz ... wrote (this).
He says: We must therefore search for a new lower boundary for Proto-Germanic.
The so-called Grimms law is a set of statements describing the inherited Europes Indo-European
stops as they developed in Pre-Proto-Germanic. As it is presently formulated, Grimms Law consists of
three parts, which must be thought of as three consecutive phases in the sense of a chain shift:
PIE voiceless stops change into PGmc. voiceless
fricatives: pf, t, kx, k
w
x
w
.
PIE voiced stops become PGmc. voiceless stops:
bp, dt, gk, g
w
k
w
.
PIE voiced aspirated stops lose their aspiration
and change into plain voiced stops: b
h
b, d
h
d,
g
h
g, g
wh
g
w
,g,w.
Verners Law addresses a category of exceptions,
stating that unvoiced fricatives are voiced when
preceded by an unaccented syllable: PGmc. sz, fv,
; as, PIE b
h
ratr PGmc. brr, brother, but
PIE mtr PGmc. mr mother.
NOTE. Sometimes the shift produced allophones
(consonants that were pronounced differently) depending on
the context of the original. With regard to original PIE k and k
w
, Trask (2000) says that the resulting PGmc. x and
x
w
were reduced to h and h
w
in word-initial position. Consonants were lengthened or prolonged under some
circumstances, appearing in some daughter languages as geminated graphemes. Kraehenmann (2003) states that
Proto-Germanic already had long consonants, but they contrasted with short ones only word-medially. Moreover,
they were not very frequent and occurred only intervocally almost exclusively after short vowels. The phonemes b,
d, g and g
w
, says Ringe (2006) were stops in some environments and fricatives in others.
Effects of the aforementioned sound laws include the following examples:
Germanic dialects in Europe. The line
dividesWestern from Northern dialects.
1. Introduction
45
pf: PIE pds, foot, PGmc. fts; cf. Goth. ftus, O.N. ftr, O.E. ft, O.H.G. fuoz.
t,: PIE tritjs, third, PGmc. rijaz; cf. Goth. ridja, O.N. rie, OE. ridda, O.H.G. dritto.
kx,h: PIE kunts, dog, PGmc. xunaz; cf. Goth. hunds, O.N. hundr, O.E. hund, O.H.G. hunt.
k
w
x
w
,h
w
: PIE k
w
os, what, who, Gmc. h
w
oz; cf. Goth. hwas, O.N. hverr, O.S. hwe, O.E. hw,
O.Fris. hwa, O.H.G. hwr.
bp: PIE werb, throw, Gmc. werp; cf. Goth. wairpan, O.S. werpan, O.N. verpa, O.E.
weorpan, M.L.G., Du. werpen, Ger. werfen.
dt: PIE dekm, ten, Gmc. tehun; cf. Goth. taihun, O.S. tehan, O.N. tiu, O.Fris. tian, O.Du. ten,
O.H.G. zehan.
gk: PIE golds, cold, Gmc. kaldaz; cf. Goth. kalds, O.N. kaldr, O.E. cald, O.H.G. kalt.
g
w
kw: PIE g
w
ws, alive, Gmc. k
w
i(k)waz; cf. Goth. k
w
ius, O.N. kvikr, O.E. cwic, O.H.G. quec.
b
h
b: PIE b
h
rtr, Gmc. brr; cf. Goth. brar, O.N. brir, O.E. bror, O.H.G. bruoder.
d
h
d: PIE d
h
woris, door, Gmc. duriz; cf. Goth. dar, O.N. dyrr, O.E duru, O.H.G. turi.
g
h
g: PIE g
h
ansis, goose, Gmc. gansiz; cf. Goth gansus, O.N. gs, O.E. gs, O.H.G. gans.
g
wh
gw/g/w: PIE g
wh
orms, warm, Gmc. warmaz; cf. O.N. varmr, O.E. wearm, O.H.G. warm.
PIE g
wh
ondos, fight, Gmc. gandaz; cf. Goth. guns, O.N. gandr, O.E. g, O.H.G. gund.
Known exception is that the voiceless stops did not become fricatives if they were preceded by PIE s.,
i.e. sp, st, sk, sk
w
. Similarly, PIE t did not become a fricative if it was preceded by p, k, or k
w
.This is
sometimes treated separately under the Germanic spirant law.
About the PIE vowels: a,oa; PIE ,. PGmc. had then short i, u, e, a, and long , , , , ?
NOTE 1. A similar mergers happened in the Slavic languages, but in the opposite direction. At the time of the
merge, the vowels probably were [] and [:] before their timbres differentiated into maybe [] and [:].
NOTE 2. PGmc. and are also transcribed as
1
and
2
;
2
is uncertain as a phoneme, and only reconstructed
from a small number of words; it is posited by the comparative method because whereas all probable instances of
inherited PIE (PGmc. *
1
) are distributed in Gothic as and the other Germanic languages as , all the Germanic
languages agree on some occasions of (e.g. PGmc. h
2
r Goth.,O.E.,O.N. hr, here). Krahe treats
2
(secondary ) as identical with . It probably continues PIE ei or i, and it may have been in the process of
transition from a diphthong to a long simple vowel in the Proto-Germanic period. Gothic makes no orthographic
and therefore presumably no phonetic distinction between
1
and
2
. The existence of two Proto-Germanic [e:]-
like phonemes is supported by the existence of two e-like Elder Futhark runes, Ehwaz and Eihwaz.
Negau helmet. It
reads (read from
right to left)
harikastiteiva\
\\ip, translated
as Harigast the
priest.
A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
Indo-European Language Association <http://dnghu.org/>
B. LATIN
The Romance languages, a
major branch of the Indo-
European language family,
comprise all languages that
descended from Latin, the
language of the Roman Empire.
Romance languages have some
800 million native speakers
worldwide, mainly in the
Americas, Europe, and Africa, as
well as in many smaller regions
scattered through the world. The
largest languages are Spanish and Portuguese, with about 400 and 200 million mother tongue speakers
respectively, most of them outside Europe. Within Europe, French (with 80 million) and Italian (70
million) are the largest ones. All Romance languages descend from Vulgar Latin, the language of
soldiers, settlers, and slaves of the Roman Empire, which was substantially different from the Classical
Latin of the Roman literati. Between 200 BC and 100 AD, the expansion of the Empire, coupled with
administrative and educational policies of Rome, made Vulgar Latin the dominant native language over
a wide area spanning from the Iberian Peninsula to the Western coast of the Black Sea. During the
Empires decadence and after its collapse and fragmentation in the 5
th
century, Vulgar Latin evolved
independently within each local area, and eventually diverged into dozens of distinct languages. The
oversea empires established by Spain, Portugal and France after the 15
th
century then spread Romance
to the other continents to such an extent that about two thirds of all Romance speakers are now
outside Europe.
Latin is usually classified, along with Faliscan, as an Italic
dialect. The Italic speakers were not native to Italy, but migrated
into the Italian Peninsula in the course of the 2
nd
millennium BC,
and were apparently related to the Celtic tribes that roamed over a
large part of Western Europe at the time. Archaeologically, the
Apennine culture of inhumations enters the Italian Peninsula from
ca. 1350 BC, east to west; the Iron Age reaches Italy from ca. 1100
BC, with the Villanovan culture (cremating), intruding north to
south. Before the Italic arrival, Italy was populated primarily by non-
The Duenos (O.Lat. duenus, Lat.
buenus) Inscription in Old Latin,
ca. 6
th
century BC.
Regions where Romance languages are spoken, either as
mother tongue or as second language.
1. Introduction
47
Indo-European groups (perhaps including the Etruscans). The first settlement on the Palatine hill dates
to ca. 750 BC, settlements on the Quirinal to 720 BC, both related to the Founding of Rome. As Rome
extended its political dominion over Italy, Latin became dominant over the other Italic languages,
which ceased to be spoken perhaps sometime in the 1
st
century AD.
The ancient Venetic language, as revealed by its inscriptions (including complete sentences), was also
closely related to the Italic languages and is sometimes even classified as Italic. However, since it also
shares similarities with other Western Indo-European branches (particularly Germanic), some linguists
prefer to consider it an independent
Indo-European language.
Italic is usually divided into:
Sabellic, including:
o Oscan, spoken in south-
central Italy.
o Umbrian group:
Umbrian.
Volscian.
Aequian.
Marsian.
South Picene.
Latino-Faliscan, including:
o Faliscan, spoken in the area
around Falerii Veteres, north
of the city of Rome.
o Latin, which was spoken in
west-central Italy. The Roman
conquests eventually spread it
throughout the Roman Empire and beyond.
NOTE. A specimen of Faliscan appears written round the edge of a picture on a patera: foied vino pipafo, cra
carefo, which in Old Latin would have been hodie vinom bibabo, cras carebo, translated as today I will drink
wine; tomorrow I won't have any (R. S. Conway, Italic Dialects). Among other distinctive features, it shows the
retention of medial f which in Latin became b, and evolution of PIE g
h
f (fo-, contrast Lat. ho-).
Iron Age Italy, ca 800 BC. In central Italy, Italic
languages. In southern and north-western Italy, other
Indo-European languages. Venetic, Sicanian and Sicel were
possibly also languages of the IE family.
The Masiliana tablet abecedarium, ca. 700 BC, read right to left:
ABGDEVZHIKLMN[]OPQRSTUX.
A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
Indo-European Language Association <http://dnghu.org/>
Phonetic changes from PIE to Latin include: b
h
f/b, d
h
f/b, g
h
h/f, g
w
w/g, k
w
kw/k, pp/kw.
The Italic languages are first attested in writing from Umbrian
and Faliscan inscriptions dating to the 7
th
century BC. The
alphabets used are based on the Old Italic alphabet, which is itself
based on the Greek alphabet. The Italic languages themselves
show minor influence from the Etruscan and somewhat more
from the Ancient Greek languages.
Oscan had much in common with Latin, though there are also
some differences, and many common word-groups in Latin were
represented by different forms; as, Lat. uolo, uelle, uolui, and
other such forms from PIE wel-, will, were represented by words
derived from g
h
er-, desire, cf. Osc. herest, he wants, desires as
opposed to Lat. uult (id.). Lat. locus, place was absent and
represented by Osc. slaagid.
In phonology, Oscan also shows a different evolution, as PIE
k
w
Osc. p instead of Lat. kw (cf. Osc. pis, Lat. quis); PIE g
w
Osc. b instead of Latin w; PIE medial b
h
, d
h
Osc. f, in contrast
to Lat. b or d (cf. Osc. mefiai, Lat. mediae), but v.s. Faliscan; etc.
Hence the reconstructed changes of PIE into Proto-Italic:
Voiced labiovelars unround or lenite: g
w
g/w, g
wh
g
h
.
Voiced aspirates become first unvoiced, then fricativize:
b
h
p
h
f; d
h
t
h
; g
h
k
h
x.
NOTE. About PIE intervocalic g
h
Ita. x, linguists (see Joseph y Wallace 1991) generally propose that it evolves
as Faliscan g or k, while in Latin it becomes glottal h, without a change of manner of articulation. Picard (1993)
rejects that proposal citing abstract phonetic principles, which Chela-Flores (1999) discusses.
PIE s Ita. before r (cf. Ita. kererom, Lat. cerebrum); unchanged elsewhere.
Up to 8 cases are found; apart from the 6 cases of Classic Latin (i.e. N-V-A-G-D-Ab), there was a
Locative (cf. Lat. proxumae viciniae, dom, carthagini; Osc. aasai, Lat. in r etc.) and an
Instrumental (cf. Columna Rostrata Lat. pugnandod, marid, naualid, etc; Osc. cadeis amnud, Lat.
inimicitiae causae; Osc. preiuatud, Lat. prut, etc.).
About forms different from original Genitives and Datives, compare Genitive (Lapis Satricanus:)
popliosio valesiosio (the type in - is also very old, Segomaros -i), and Dative (Praeneste Fibula:)
numasioi, (Lucius Cornelius Scipio Epitaph:) quoiei.
Forum inscription in Latin,
written boustrophedon.
1. Introduction
49
C. CELTIC
The Celtic languages are the languages
descended from Proto-Celtic, or Common
Celtic, a dialect of Proto-Indo-European.
During the 1
st
millennium BC, especially
between the 5
th
and 2
nd
centuries BC they
were spoken across Europe, from the
southwest of the Iberian Peninsula and the
North Sea, up the Rhine and down the
Danube to the Black Sea and the Upper
Balkan Peninsula, and into Asia Minor
(Galatia). Today, Celtic languages are now
limited to a few enclaves in the British Isles and
on the peninsula of Brittany in France.
The distinction of Celtic into different sub-families probably occurred about 1000 BC. The early Celts
are commonly associated with the archaeological Urnfield culture, the La Tne culture, and the
Hallstatt culture.
Scholarly handling of the Celtic languages has been rather argumentative owing to lack of primary
source data. Some scholars distinguish Continental and Insular Celtic, arguing that the differences
between the Goidelic and Brythonic languages arose after these split off from the Continental Celtic
languages. Other scholars distinguish P-Celtic from Q-Celtic, putting most of the Continental Celtic
languages in the former group except for Celtiberian, which is Q-Celtic.
NOTE. There are two competing schemata of categorization. One scheme, argued for by Schmidt (1988) among
others, links Gaulish with Brythonic in a P-Celtic node, leaving Goidelic as Q-Celtic. The difference between P
and Q languages is the treatment of PIE k
w
, which became *p in the P-Celtic languages but *k in Goidelic. An
example is the Proto-Celtic verbal root k
w
rin- to buy, which became pryn- in Welsh but cren- in Old Irish.
The other scheme links Goidelic and Brythonic together as an Insular Celtic branch, while Gaulish and
Celtiberian are referred to as Continental Celtic. According to this theory, the P-Celtic sound change of [k
w
] to [p]
occurred independently or regionally. The proponents of the Insular Celtic hypothesis point to other shared
innovations among Insular Celtic languages, including inflected prepositions, VSO word order, and the lenition of
intervocalic [m] to [], a nasalized voiced bilabial fricative (an extremely rare sound), etc. There is, however, no
assumption that the Continental Celtic languages descend from a common Proto-Continental Celtic ancestor.
Rather, the Insular/Continental schemata usually consider Celtiberian the first branch to split from Proto-Celtic,
and the remaining group would later have split into Gaulish and Insular Celtic.
Diachronic distribution of Celtic peoples:
maximal expansion (ca. 200 BC) and modern
Celtic nations and Celtic-speaking territories.
A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
Indo-European Language Association <http://dnghu.org/>
Known PIE evolutions into Proto-Celtic
include:
Consonants: p h in initial and
intervocalic positions. Cel. sxs,
txt
NOTE. PIE p was lost in Proto-Celtic,
apparently going through the stages (perhaps
in Lus. porcos, v.i.) and h (perhaps attested by
the toponym Hercynia if this is of Celtic origin)
before being lost completely word-initially and
between vowels. PIE sp- became Old Irish s and
Brythonic f; while Schrijver (1995) argues there
was an intermediate stage s- (in which
remained an independent phoneme until after
Proto-Insular Celtic had diverged into Goidelic and Brythonic), McCone (1996) finds it more economical to believe
that sp- remained unchanged in PC, that is, the change p to did not happen when s preceded.
Aspirated: d
h
d, b
h
b, g
h
x, g
wh
g
w
; but g
w
b.
Vowels: , (in final syllable); ; PIE u-w Cel. o-w.
Diphthongs: iai, iei, ioi; uau, u,uou;
Sonorants: lla, li (before stops); r ar, ri (before stops); m Cel. am; n Cel. an.
Italo-Celtic refers to the hypothesis that Italic and Celtic dialects are descended from a common
ancestor, Proto-Italo-Celtic, at a stage post-dating Proto-Indo-European. Since both Proto-Celtic and
Proto-Italic date to the early Iron Age (say, the centuries on either side of 1000 BC), a probable time
frame for the assumed period of language contact would be the late Bronze Age, the early to mid 2
nd
millennium BC. Such grouping is supported among others by Meillet (1890), and Kortlandt (2007).
NOTE. One argument for Italo-Celtic was the thematic Genitive in i (dominus, domini). Both in Italic (Popliosio
Valesiosio, Lapis Satricanus) and in Celtic (Lepontic, Celtiberian -o), however, traces of PIE gentivie -osjo have
been discovered, so that the spread of the i-Genitive could have occurred in the two groups independently, or by
areal diffusion. The community of - in Italic and Celtic may be then attributable to early contact, rather than to an
original unity. The i-Genitive has been compared to the so-called Cvi formation in Sanskrit, but that too is
probably a comparatively late development.
Other arguments include that both Celtic and Italic have collapsed the PIE Aorist and Perfect into a single past
tense, and the -subjunctive, because both Italic and Celtic have a subjunctive descended from an earlier optative
in --. Such an optative is not known from other languages, but the suffix occurs in Balto-Slavic and Tocharian
past tense formations, and possibly in Hittite -ahh-.
Hallstatt core territory (ca. 800 BC) and influence (ca.
500 BC) and La Tne culture (ca. 450) and influence (ca.
50 BC), with some major Celtic tribes labeled.
1. Introduction
51
D. SLAVIC
The Slavic languages (also called Slavonic languages), a group of closely related languages of the
Slavic peoples and a subgroup of the Indo-European language family, have speakers in most of Eastern
Europe, in much of the Balkans, in parts of Central Europe, and in the northern part of Asia. The largest
languages are Russian and Polish, with 165 and some 47 million speakers, respectively. The oldest
Slavic literary language was Old Church Slavonic, which later evolved into Church Slavonic.
There is much debate whether Pre-Proto-Slavic branched off directly from Europes Indo-European in
2000 BC, or whether it passed through a common Proto-Balto-Slavic stage which had necessarily
split apart before 1000 BC in its two main sub-branches.
Distribution of Slavic languages in Europe now and in the past (in stripes).
A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
Indo-European Language Association <http://dnghu.org/>
The original homeland of the speakers of Proto-
Slavic remains controversial too. The most ancient
recognizably Slavic hydronyms (river names) are
to be found in northern and western Ukraine and
southern Belarus. It has also been noted that
Proto-Slavic seemingly lacked a maritime
vocabulary.
The Proto-Slavic language seccesion from
common Proto-Balto-Slavic is estimated on
archaeological and glottochronological critera to
have occurred between 1500-1000 BC. Common
Slavic is usually reconstructible to around 600 AD.
By the 7
th
century, Common Slavic had broken
apart into large dialectal zones. Linguistic
differentiation received impetus from the
dispersion of the Slavic peoples over a large
territory which in Central Europe exceeded the current extent of Slavic-speaking territories. Written
documents of the 9
th
, 10
th
& 11
th
centuries already show some local linguistic features.
NOTE. For example the Freising monuments show a language which contains some phonetic and lexical
elements peculiar to Slovenian dialects (e.g. rhotacism, the word krilatec).
In the second half of the ninth century, the dialect spoken north of Thessaloniki became the basis for
the first written Slavic language, created by the brothers Cyril and Methodius who translated portions of
the Bible and other church books. The language they recorded is known as Old Church Slavonic. Old
Church Slavonic is not identical to Proto-Slavic, having been recorded at least two centuries after the
breakup of Proto-Slavic, and it shows features that clearly distinguish it from Proto-Slavic. However, it
is still reasonably close, and the mutual intelligibility between Old Church Slavonic and other Slavic
dialects of those days was proved by Cyrils and Methodius mission to Great Moravia and Pannonia.
There, their early South Slavic dialect used for the translations was clearly understandable to the local
population which spoke an early West Slavic dialect.
As part of the preparation for the mission, the Glagolitic alphabet was created in 862 and the most
important prayers and liturgical books, including the Aprakos Evangeliar a Gospel Book lectionary
containing only feast-day and Sunday readings , the Psalter, and Acts of the Apostles, were translated.
The language and the alphabet were taught at the Great Moravian Academy (O.C.S. Vekomoravsk
uilite) and were used for government and religious documents and books. In 885, the use of the Old
Historical distribution of the Slavic languages.
The larger shaded area is the Prague-Penkov-
Kolochin complex of cultures of the 6th to 7th
centuries, likely corresponding to the spread of
Slavic-speaking tribes of the time. The smaller
shaded area indicates the core area of Slavic
river names, dated ca. 500 AD.
1. Introduction
53
Church Slavonic in Great Moravia was prohibited by the Pope in favour of Latin. Students of the two
apostles, who were expelled from Great Moravia in 886, brought the Glagolitic alphabet and the Old
Church Slavonic language to the Bulgarian Empire, where it was taught and Cyrillic alphabet developed
in the Preslav Literary School.
Vowel changes from PIE to Proto-Slavic:
PIE , ei Sla. i
1
.
PIE ai, oi reduced *ai (*i/*ui) Sla. i
2
.
PIE i *i Sla. .
PIE e Sla. e.
PIE en, em Sla. .
PIE Sla.
1
.
PIE ai, oi *ai Sla.
2
.
PIE , * Sla. a.
PIE a, o, intervocalic *a Sla. o.
PIE an, on, am, om *an, *am Sla. .
PIE u *u Sla. .
PIE Sla. y.
PIE au, ou *au Sla. u.
NOTE 1. Apart from this simplified equivalences, other
evolutions appear:
o The vowels i
2
,
2
developed later than i
1
,
1
. In Late Proto-
Slavic there were no differences in pronunciation between i
1
and
i
2
as well as between
1
and
2
. They had caused, however,
different changes of preceding velars, see below.
o Late Proto-Slavic yers , < earlier i, u developed also from reduced PIE e, o respectively. The reduction was
probably a morphologic process rather than phonetic.
o We can observe similar reduction of into * (and finally y) in some endings, especially in closed syllables.
o The development of the Sla. i
2
was also a morphologic phenomenon, originating only in some endings.
o Another source of the Proto-Slavic y is * in Germanic loanwords the borrowings took place when Proto-
Slavic no longer had in native words, as PIE had already changed into *.
o PIE disappeared without traces when in a non-initial syllable.
o PIE eu probably developed into *jau in Early Proto-Slavic (or: during the Balto-Slavic epoch), and
eventually into Proto-Slavic ju.
A page from the 10
th
-11
th
century
Codex Zographensis found in the
Zograf Monastery in 1843. It is
written in Old Church Slavonic, in
the Glagolitic alphabet designed by
brothers St Cyril and St Methodius.
A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
Indo-European Language Association <http://dnghu.org/>
o According to some authors, PIE long diphthongs i, i, i, u, u, u had twofold development in Early
Proto-Slavic, namely they shortened in endings into simple *ei, *ai, *oi, *eu, *au, *ou but they lost their second
element elsewhere and changed into *, *, * with further development like above.
NOTE 2. Other vocalic changes from Proto-Slavic include *jo, *j, *jy changed into *je, *j, *ji; *o, *, *y also
changed into *e, *, *i after *c, *, *s which developed as the result of the 3
rd
palatalization; *e, * changed into
*o, *a after *, *, *, * in some contexts or words; a similar change of * into *a after *j seems to have occurred in
Proto-Slavic but next it can have been modified by analogy.
On the origin of Proto-Slavic consonants, the following relationships are regularly found:
PIE p Sla. p.
PIE b, b
h
Sla. b.
PIE t Sla. t.
PIE d, d
h
Sla. d.
PIE k, k
w
Sla. k;
o palatalized *k
j
Sla. s.
PIE g, g
h
, g
w
, g
wh
Sla. g;
o palatalized *g
j
, *g
jh
Sla. z.
PIE s Sla. s;
o before a voiced consonant PIE [z]
Sla. z;
o PIE s before a vowel when after r,
u, k, i, probably also after l Sla. x.
PIE word-final m SIu. n (<BSl. *n).
PIE m Sla. im, um.
PIE n Sla. in, un.
PIE l Sla. il, ul.
PIE r Sla. ir, ur.
PIE w Sla. v (<BSl. *w).
PIE j Sla. j.
In some words the Proto-Slavic x developed from other PIE phonemes, like kH, ks, sk.
NOTE. For a detailed study of phonetic changes you can read Frederik Kortlandts online article From Proto-
Indo-European to Slavic (1983) at <http://www.kortlandt.nl/publications/art066e.pdf>.
Page from the Spiridon Psalter in Church Slavic,
a language derived from Old Church Slavonic by
adapting pronunciation and orthography, and
replacing some old and obscure words and
expressions by their vernacular counterparts.
1. Introduction
55
E. BALTIC
The Baltic languages are a group
of related languages belonging to the
Indo-European language family and
spoken mainly in areas extending
east and southeast of the Baltic Sea
in Northern Europe.
The language group is often divided
into two sub-groups: Western Baltic,
containing only extinct languages as
Prussian or Galindan, and Eastern
Baltic, containing both extinct and
the two living languages in the
group, Lithuanian and Latvian.
While related, Lithuanian, Latvian,
and particularly Old Prussian differ
substantially from each other and are
not mutually intelligible.
Baltic and Slavic share so many
similarities that many linguists, following the lead of such notable Indo-Europeanists as August
Schleicher and Oswald Szemernyi, take these to indicate that the two groups separated from a
common ancestor, the Proto-Balto-Slavic language, dated ca. 2000-1400 BC.
NOTE 1. Until Meillets Dialectes indo-europens of 1908, Balto-Slavic unity was undisputed among linguists
as he notes himself at the beginning of the Le Balto-Slave chapter, Lunit linguistique balto-slave est lune de
celles que personne ne conteste. Meillets critique of Balto-Slavic confined itself to the seven characteristics listed
by Karl Brugmann in 1903, attempting to show that no single one of these is sufficient to prove genetic unity.
Szemernyi in his 1957 re-examination of Meillets results concludes that the Balts and Slavs did, in fact, share a
period of common language and life, and were probably separated due to the incursion of Germanic tribes
along the Vistula and the Dnepr roughly at the beginning of the Common Era.
NOTE 2. Another theory was proposed in the 1960s by V. Ivanov and V. Toporov: that the Balto-Slavic proto-
language split from the start into West Baltic, East Baltic and Proto-Slavic. In their framework, Proto-Slavic is a
peripheral and innovative Balto-Slavic dialect which suddenly expanded, due to a conjunction of historical
circumstances. Onomastic evidence shows that Baltic languages were once spoken in much wider territory than
the one they cover today, and were later replaced by Slavic.
A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
Indo-European Language Association <http://dnghu.org/>
The most important of these common Balto-Slavic isoglosses are:
Winter's law: lengthening of a short vowel before a voiced plosive, usually in a closed syllable.
Identical reflexes of PIE syllabic sonorants, usually developing i and u before them.
NOTE. Kuryowicz thought that *uR reflexes arose after PIE velars, and also notable is also older opinion of
J.Endzelns and R. Trautmann according to whom *uR reflexes are the result of zero-grade of morphemes that
had PIE o PBSl. *a in normal-grade. Matasovi (2008) proposes following internal rules after PIE syllabic R
BSl. *R: 1) **i in a final syllable; 2) **u after velars and before nasals; 3) **i otherwise.
Hirt's law: retraction of PIE accent to the preceding syllable closed by a laryngeal.
Rise of the Balto-Slavic acute before PIE laryngeals in a closed syllable.
Replacement of PIE genitive singular of thematic nouns with ablative.
Formation of past tense in *- (cf. Lith. preterite dv, he gave, O.C.S. imperfect b, he was)
Generalization of the PIE neuter *to- stem to the nominative singular of masculine and feminine
demonstratives instead of PIE so- pronoun, so, s, tod BSI. tos, t, tod.
Formation of so-called definite adjectives with a construction of adjective and relative pronoun;
cf. Lith. gersis, the good, vs. gras, good; O.C.S dobrj, the good, vs. dobr, good.
NOTE. Ruki is the term for a sound law which is followed especially in Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian dialects.
The name of the term comes from the sounds which cause the phonetic change, i.e. PIE s / r, u, K, i (it
associates with a Slavic word which means hands or arms). A sibilant [s] is retracted to [] after i,u,r, and after
velars (i.e. k which may have developed from earlier k, g, g
h
). Due to the character of the retraction, it was
probably an apical sibilant (as in Spanish), rather than the dorsal of English. The first phase (s ) seems to be
universal, the later retroflexion (in Sanskrit and probably in Proto-Slavic as well) is due to levelling of the sibilant
system, and so is the third phase - the retraction to velar [x] in Slavic and also in some Middle Indian languages,
with parallels in e.g. Spanish. This rule was first formulated for the Indo-European by Holger Pedersen.
Common Balto-Slavic innovations include several other prominent, but non-exclusive isoglosses, such
as the satemization, Ruki, change of PIE o BSl. *a (shared with Germanic, Indo-Iranian and
Anatolian) and the loss of labialization in PIE labiovelars (shared with Indo-Iranian, Armenian and
Tocharian). Among Balto-Slavic archaisms notable is the retention of traces of an older PIE accent.
Baltic and Slavic languages also show a remarkable amount of correspondence in vocabulary; there
are at least 100 words exclusive to Balto-Slavic, either being a common innovation (i.e. not of PIE
origin) or sharing the same semantic development from PIE root. For example:
BSl. *lip, tilia Lith. lepa, O.Prus. lpa, Ltv. lipa; Sla. *lipa.
BSl. *rank, hand Lith. rank, O.Prus. rnkan, Ltv. roka; Sla. *rk (cf. O.C.S. rka).
BSl. *galw, head Lith. galv, O.Prus. galwo, Ltv. galva; Sla. *golv (cf. O.C.S. glava).
1. Introduction
57
F. FRAGMENTARY DIALECTS
MESSAPIAN
Messapian (also known as Messapic) is an extinct Indo-European language of south-eastern Italy,
once spoken in the regions of Apulia and Calabria. It was spoken by the three Iapygian tribes of the
region: the Messapians, the Daunii and the Peucetii. The language, a centum dialect, has been
preserved in about 260 inscriptions dating from the 6
th
to the 1
st
century BC.
There is a hypothesis that Messapian was an Illyrian language. The Illyrian languages were spoken
mainly on the other side of the Adriatic Sea. The link between Messapian and Illyrian is based mostly
on personal names found on tomb inscriptions and on classical references, since hardly any traces of
the Illyrian language are left.
The Messapian language became extinct after the Roman Empire conquered the region and
assimilated the inhabitants.
Some phonetic characteristics of the language may be regarded as quite certain:
PIE short oa, as in the last syllable of the genitive kalatoras.
PIE final mn, as in aran.
PIE njnn, as in the Messapian praenomen Dazohonnes vs. the Illyrian praenomen Dazonius;
the Messapian genitive Dazohonnihi vs. Illyrian genitive Dasonii, etc.
PIE tjtth, as in the Messapian praenomen Dazetthes vs. Illyrian Dazetius; the Messapian
genitive Dazetthihi vs. the Illyrian genitive Dazetii; from a Dazet- stem common in Illyrian and
Messapian.
PIE siss, as in Messapian Vallasso for Vallasio, a derivative from the shorter name Valla.
The loss of final -d, as in tepise, and probably of final -t, as in -des, perhaps meaning set, from
PIE d
h
e-, set, put.
The change of voiced aspirates in Proto-Indo-European to plain voiced consonants: PIE d
h
d,
as in Messapian anda (< PIE en-d
h
a- < PIE en-, in, compare Gk. entha); and PIE b
h
b, as in
Messapian beran (< PIE b
h
er-, to bear).
PIE au before (at least some) consonants: Bsta, from Bausta.
The form penkaheh which Torp very probably identifies with the Oscan stem pompaio a
derivative of the Proto-Indo-European numeral penk
w
e, five.
If this last identification be correct it would show, that in Messapian (just as in Venetic and Ligurian)
the original labiovelars (k
w
, g
w
, g
wh
) were retained as gutturals and not converted into labials. The
change of o to a is exceedingly interesting, being associated with the northern branches of Indo-
A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
Indo-European Language Association <http://dnghu.org/>
European such as Gothic, Albanian and Lithuanian, and not appearing in any other southern dialect
hitherto known. The Greek Aphrodite appears in the form Aprodita (Dat. Sg., fem.).
The use of double consonants which has been already pointed out in the Messapian inscriptions has
been very acutely connected by Deecke with the tradition that the same practice was introduced at
Rome by the poet Ennius who came from the Messapian town Rudiae (Festus, p. 293 M).
VENETIC
Venetic is an Indo-European language that was spoken in ancient times in the Veneto region of Italy,
between the Po River delta and the southern fringe of the Alps.
The language is attested by over 300 short inscriptions dating between the 6
th
century BC and 1
st
century. Its speakers are identified with the ancient people called Veneti by the Romans and Enetoi by
the Greek. It became extinct around the 1
st
century when the local inhabitants were assimilated into the
Roman sphere.
Venetic was a centum dialect. The inscriptions use a variety of the Northern Italic alphabet, similar to
the Old Italic alphabet.
The exact relationship of Venetic to other Indo-European languages is still being investigated, but the
majority of scholars agree that Venetic, aside from Liburnian, was closest to the Italic languages.
Venetic may also have been related to the Illyrian languages, though the theory that Illyrian and Venetic
were closely related is debated by current scholarship.
Interesting parallels with Germanic have also been noted, especially in pronominal forms:
Ven. ego, I, acc. mego, me; Goth. ik, acc. mik; but cf. Lat. ego, acc. me.
Ven. sselboisselboi, to oneself; O.H.G. selb selbo; but cf. Lat. sibi ipsi.
Venetic had about six or even seven noun cases and four conjugations (similar to Latin). About 60
words are known, but some were borrowed from Latin (liber.tos. < libertus) or Etruscan. Many of them
show a clear Indo-European origin, such as Ven. vhraterei (< PIE b
h
raterei), to the brother.
In Venetic, PIE stops b
h
f, d
h
f, g
h
h, in word-initial position (as in Latin and Osco-Umbrian), but
to b
h
b, d
h
d, g
h
g, in word-internal intervocalic position, as in Latin. For Venetic, at least the
developments of b
h
and d
h
are clearly attested. Faliscan and Osco-Umbrian preserve internal b
h
f,
d
h
f, g
h
h.
There are also indications of the developments of PIE initial g
w
w-, PIE k
w
kv and PIE initial g
wh
f
in Venetic, all of which are parallel to Latin, as well as the regressive assimilation of PIE sequence
p...k
w
... k
w
...k
w
... (e.g. penk
w
e *k
w
enk
w
e, five, perk
w
u *k
w
erk
w
u, ouk), a feature also found
in Italic and Celtic (Lejeune 1974).
1. Introduction
59
LIGURIAN
The Ligurian language was spoken in pre-Roman times and into the Roman era by an ancient
people of north-western Italy and south-eastern France known as the Ligures. Very little is known about
this language (mainly place names and personal names remain) which is generally believed to have
been Indo-European; it appears to have adopted significantly from other Indo-European languages,
primarily Celtic (Gaulish) and Italic (Latin).
Strabo states As for the Alps... Many tribes (thn) occupy these mountains, all Celtic (Keltik)
except the Ligurians; but while these Ligurians belong to a different people (hetero-ethneis), still they
are similar to the Celts in their modes of life (bois).
LIBURNIAN
The Liburnian language is an extinct language which was spoken by the ancient Liburnians, who
occupied Liburnia in classical times. The Liburnian language is reckoned as an Indo-European
language, usually classified as a Centum language. It appears to have been on the same Indo-European
branch as the Venetic language; indeed, the Liburnian tongue may well have been a Venetic dialect.
No writings in Liburnian are known, though. The grouping of Liburnian with Venetic is based on the
Liburnian onomastics. In particular, Liburnian anthroponyms show strong Venetic affinities, with
many common or similar names and a number of common roots, such as Vols-, Volt-, and Host- (<PIE
g
h
os-ti-, stranger, guest, host). Liburnian and Venetic names also share suffixes in common, such as
-icus and -ocus.
NOTE. These features set Liburnian and Venetic apart from the Illyrian onomastic province, though this does
not preclude the possibility that Venetic-Liburnian and Illyrian may have been closely related, belonging to the
same Indo-European branch. In fact, a number of linguists argue that this is the case, based on similar phonetic
features and names in common between Venetic-Liburnian on the one hand and Illyrian on the other.
The Liburnians were conquered by the Romans in 35 BC, and its language was eventually replaced by
Latin, undergoing language death probably very early in the Common era.
LUSITANIAN
Lusitanian (so named after the Lusitani or Lusitanians) was a Paleohispanic Indo-European
language known by only five inscriptions and numerous toponyms and theonyms. The language was
spoken before the Roman conquest of Lusitania, in the territory inhabited by Lusitanian tribes, from
Douro to the Tagus rivers in the wetern area of the Iberian Peninsula, where they were established
already before the 6
th
century BC.
A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
Indo-European Language Association <http://dnghu.org/>
Their language is usually
considered a Pre-Celtic (possibly
Italo-Celtic) IE dialect, and it is
sometimes associated with the
language of the Vettones and with
the linguistic substratum of the
Gallaeci and Astures, based on
archaeological findings and
descriptions of ancient historians.
NOTE. The affiliation of the
Lusitanian language within the Italo-
Celtic group is still debated. There
are those who endorse that it is a
Celtic language, a theory largely
based upon the historical fact that
the only Indo-European tribes that
are known to have existed in
Portugal at that time were Celtic
tribes. The apparent Celtic
character of most of the lexicon
anthroponyms and toponyms may also support a Celtic affiliation. There is a substantial problem in the Celtic
theory however: the preservation of PIE initial p-, as in Lusitanian pater or porcom, meaning father and pig,
respectively. The Celtic languages had lost that initial p- in their evolution; compare Lat. pater, Gaul. ater, and
Lat. porcum, O.Ir. orc. However, it does not necessarily preclude the possibility of Lusitanian being Celtic,
because of the supposed evolution of PIE initial p * *h Cel. , so it might have been an early Proto-Celtic
(or Italo-Celtic) dialect that split off before the loss of p-, or when p- had become * - (before shifting to h- and
then being lost); the letter p of the Latin alphabet could have been used to represent either sound.
F. Villar and R. Pedrero relate Lusitanian with the
Italic languages. The theory is based on parallels in the
names of deities, as Lat. Consus, Lus. Cossue, Lat. Seia,
Lus. Segia, or Marrucinian Iovia, Lus. Iovea(i), etc.
and other lexical items, as Umb. gomia, Lus. comaiam,
with some other grammatical elements.
Arroyo de la Luz (Cceres) Inscription:
ISACCIDRVETI//PVPPIDCARLAEEN//ETO
MINDINA. //....CEIOM//M
Classification of ethnic groups in Hispania ca. 200 BC.
1. Introduction
61
II. NORTHERN INDO-EUROPEAN IN ASIA: TOCHARIAN
Tocharian or Tokharian is
one of the most obscure branches
of the group of Indo-European
languages. The name of the
language is taken from people
known to the Greek historians
(Ptolemy VI, 11, 6) as the
Tocharians (Greek ,
Tokharoi). These are
sometimes identified with the
Yuezhi and the Kushans, while
the term Tokharistan usually
refers to 1
st
millennium Bactria. A
Turkic text refers to the Turfanian
language (Tocharian A) as twqry. Interpretation is difficult, but F. W. K. Mller has associated this with
the name of the Bactrian Tokharoi. In Tocharian, the language is referred to as arish-kna and the
Tocharians as arya.
Tocharian consisted of two languages; Tocharian A (Turfanian, Arsi, or East Tocharian) and
Tocharian B (Kuchean or West Tocharian). These languages were spoken roughly from the 6
th
to 9
th
century centuries; before they became extinct, their speakers were absorbed into the expanding Uyghur
tribes. Both languages were once spoken in the Tarim Basin in Central Asia, now the Xinjiang
Autonomous Region of China.
Tocharian is documented in manuscript fragments, mostly from the 8
th
century (with a few earlier
ones) that were written on palm leaves, wooden tablets and Chinese paper, preserved by the extremely
dry climate of the Tarim Basin. Samples of the language have been discovered at sites in Kucha and
Karasahr, including many mural inscriptions.
Tocharian A and B are not intercomprehensible. Properly speaking, based on the tentative
interpretation of twqry as related to Tokharoi, only Tocharian A may be referred to as Tocharian, while
Tocharian B could be called Kuchean (its native name may have been kuie), but since their
grammars are usually treated together in scholarly works, the terms A and B have proven useful. The
common Proto-Tocharian language must precede the attested languages by several centuries, probably
dating to the 1
st
millennium BC.
Wooden plate with inscriptions in Tocharian. Kucha, China,
5
th
-8
th
century.
A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
Indo-European Language Association <http://dnghu.org/>
1.7.2. SOUTHERN INDO-EUROPEAN DIALECTS
I. GREEK
Greek (Gk. ,
Hellenic) is an Indo-
European branch with a
documented history of 3,500
years. Today, Modern Greek is
spoken by 15 million people in
Greece, Cyprus, the former
Yugoslavia, particularly the
former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia, Bulgaria, Albania
and Turkey.
The major dialect groups of
the Ancient Greek period can
be assumed to have developed
not later than 1120 BC, at the
time of the Dorian invasions,
and their first appearances as
precise alphabetic writing began in the 8th century BC. The ancient Greeks themselves considered there
to be three major divisions of the Greek people, into Dorians, Aeolians, and Ionians (including
Athenians), each with their own defining and distinctive dialects. Allowing for their oversight of
Arcadian, an obscure mountain dialect, and Cyprian, far from the center of Greek scholarship, this
division of people and language is quite similar to the results of modern archaeological and linguistic
investigation.
Greek has been spoken in the Balkan Peninsula since the 2
nd
millennium BC. The earliest evidence of
this is found in the Linear B tablets dating from 1500 BC. The later Greek alphabet is unrelated to
Linear B, and was derived from the Phoenician alphabet; with minor modifications, it is still used today.
Mycenaean is the most ancient attested form of the Greek branch, spoken on mainland Greece and
on Crete in the 16
th
to 11
th
centuries BC, before the Dorian invasion. It is preserved in inscriptions in
Linear B, a script invented on Crete before the 14
th
century BC. Most instances of these inscriptions are
on clay tablets found in Knossos and in Pylos. The language is named after Mycenae, the first of the
palaces to be excavated.
Ancient Greek dialects by 400 BC after R.D. Woodard (2008).
1. Introduction
63
The tablets remained long undeciphered, and every
conceivable language was suggested for them, until Michael
Ventris deciphered the script in 1952 and proved the language
to be an early form of Greek. The texts on the tablets are
mostly lists and inventories. No prose narrative survives, much
less myth or poetry. Still, much may be glimpsed from these
records about the people who produced them, and about the
Mycenaean period at the eve of the so-called Greek Dark Ages.
Unlike later varieties of Greek, Mycenaean Greek probably
had seven grammatical cases, the nominative, the genitive, the
accusative, the dative, the instrumental, the locative, and the
vocative. The instrumental and the locative however gradually
fell out of use.
NOTE. For the Locative in -ei, compare di-da-ka-re, didaskalei, e-pi-
ko-e, Epikhei, etc (in Greek there are syntactic compounds like puloi-
gens, born in Pylos); also, for remains of an Ablative case in -d, compare (months names) ka-ra-e-ri-jo-me-
no, wo-de-wi-jo-me-no, etc.
Proto-Greek, a southern PIE dialect, was spoken in the late 3
rd
millennium BC, roughly at the same
time as Europes Indo-European, most probably in the Balkans. The unity of Proto-Greek probably
ended as Hellenic migrants, speaking the predecessor of the Mycenaean language, entered the Greek
peninsula around the 21st century BC. They were then separated from the Dorian Greeks, who entered
the peninsula roughly one millennium later, speaking a dialect that in some respects had remained
more archaic.
Proto-Greek was affected by a late satemization, evidenced by the (post-Mycenaean) change of
labiovelars into dentals before e (e.g. k
w
e te and).
The primary sound changes from PIE (and PIH laryngeals) to Proto-Greek include:
Aspiration of PIE intervocalic s PGk h.
NOTE. The loss of PIE prevocalic s- was not completed entirely, famously evidenced by sus sow, dasus
dense; sun with, sometimes considered contaminated with PIE kom (cf. Latin cum) to Homeric / Old Attic
ksun, is possibly a consequence of Gk. psi-substrate (See Villar).
De-voicing of voiced aspirates: b
h
p
h
, d
h
t
h
, g
h
k
h
, g
wh
k
wh
.
Dissimilation of aspirates (Grassmanns law), possibly post-Mycenaean.
PIE word-initial j- (not Hj-) is strengthened to PGk dj- (later Gk. -).
Linear B has roughly 200 signs,
divided into syllabic signs with
phonetic values and logograms
with semantic values.
A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
Indo-European Language Association <http://dnghu.org/>
Vocalization of laryngeals between vowels and initially before consonants, i.e. h
1
e, h
2
a, h
3
o.
NOTE. The evolution of Proto-Greek should be considered with the background of an early Palaeo-Balkan
sprachbund that makes it difficult to delineate exact boundaries between individual languages. The
characteristically Greek representation of word-initial laryngeals by prothetic vowels is shared by the Armenian
language, which also shares other phonological and morphological peculiarities of Greek, vide infra.
The sequence CRHC (where C = consonant, R = resonant, H = laryngeal) becomes PIH CRh
1
C
PGk CRC; PIH CRh
2
C PGk CRC; PIH CRh
3
C PGk CRC.
The sequence PIH CRHV (where V = vowel) becomes PGk CaRV.
NOTE. It has also been proposed that Vk
w
uk
w
; cf. PIE nok
w
ts, night PGk nuk
w
ts Gk. nuks/nuxt-.
Later sound changes between the earliest Proto-Greek and the attested Mycenaean include:
o Loss of final stop consonants; final mn.
o Syllabic am, and an, before resonants; otherwise both were nasalized /a.
o loss of s in consonant clusters, with supplementary lengthening, e.g. esmimi.
o creation of secondary s from clusters, ntiansa. Assibilation tisi only in southern dialects.
Other attested changes between PIE and the earliest Greek dialects include:
The PIE dative, instrumental and locative cases are syncretized into a single dative case. Some
innovative desinences appear, as e.g. dative plural -si from locative plural -su.
Dialectal nominative plural in -oi, -ai fully replaces Late PIE common -s, -s.
The superlative on -tatos (<PIE -t-to-s) becomes productive.
The peculiar oblique stem gunaik- women, attested from the Thebes tablets is probably Proto-
Greek; it appears, at least as gunai- also in Armenian.
The pronouns houtos, ekeinos and autos are created. Use of ho, h, ton as articles is post-
Mycenaean.
An isogloss between Greek and the closely related Phrygian is the absence of r-endings in the
Middle in Greek, apparently already lost in Proto-Greek.
Proto-Greek inherited the augment, an IE prefix - to verbal forms expressing past tense. This
feature it shares only with Indo-Iranian and Phrygian (and to some extent, Armenian), lending
support to a Southern or Graeco-Aryan Dialect.
The first person middle verbal desinences -mai, -mn replace -ai, -a. The third singular pherei
is an analogical innovation, replacing the expected PIE b
h
reti, i.e. Dor. *phereti, Ion. *pheresi.
The future tense is created, including a future passive, as well as an aorist passive.
The suffix -ka- is attached to some perfects and aorists.
Infinitives in -ehen, -enai and -men are created.
1. Introduction
65
II. ARMENIAN
Armenian is an Indo-European language
spoken in the Armenian Republic and also used
by Armenians in the Diaspora. It constitutes an
independent branch of the Indo-European
language family.
Armenian was traditionally regarded as a close
relative of Phrygian, apparently closely related to
Greek, sharing major isoglosses with it. The
Graeco-Armenian hypothesis proposed a close
relationship to the Greek language, putting both
in the larger context of Paleo-Balkans languages
notably including Phrygian, which is widely
accepted as an Indo-European language
particularly close to Greek, and sometimes Ancient
Macedonian , consistent with Herodotus
recording of the Armenians as descending from colonists of the Phrygians.
NOTE. That traditional linguistic theory, proposed by Pedersen (1924), establishes a close relationship between
both original communities, Greek and Armenian, departing from a common subdialect of IE IIIa (Southern
Dialect of Late PIE). That vision, accepted for a long time, was rejected by Clackson (1994) in The linguistic
relationship between Armenian and Greek, which, supporting the Graeco-Aryan linguistic hypothesis, dismisses
that the coincidences between Armenian and Greek represent more than those found in the comparison between
any other IE language pair. Those findings are supported by Kortlandt in Armeniaca (2003), in which he proposes
a continuum Daco-Albanian / Graeco-Phrygian / Thraco-Armenian.
The earliest testimony of the Armenian language dates to the 5
th
century AD, the Bible translation of
Mesrob Mashtots. The earlier history of the language is unclear and the subject of much speculation. It
is clear that Armenian is an Indo-European language, but its development is opaque.
NOTE. Proto-Armenian sound-laws are varied and eccentric, such as PIE dw- yielding Arm. k-, and in many
cases still uncertain. In fact, that phonetic development is usually seen as dw- to erk-, based on PIE numeral
dwo-, two, a reconstruction Kortlandt (ibidem) dismisses, exposing alternative etymologies for the usual
examples.
PIE voiceless stops are aspirated in Proto-Armenian, a circumstance that gave rise to the Glottalic
theory, which postulates that this aspiration may have been sub-phonematic already in PIE. In certain
Distribution of Armenian speakers in the 20
th
Century.
A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
Indo-European Language Association <http://dnghu.org/>
contexts, these aspirated stops are further reduced to w, h or zero in Armenian so e.g. PIE *pots, into
Arm. otn, Gk. pous, foot; PIE *treis, Arm. erek, Gk. treis, three.
The reconstruction of Proto-Armenian being very uncertain, there
is no general consensus on the date range when it might have been
alive. If Herodotus is correct in deriving Armenians from Phrygian
stock, the Armenian-Phrygian split would probably date to between
roughly the 12
th
and 7
th
centuries BC, but the individual sound-laws
leading to Proto-Armenian may have occurred at any time
preceding the 5
th
century AD. The various layers of Persian and
Greek loanwords were likely acquired over the course of centuries,
during Urartian (pre-6
th
century BC) Achaemenid (6
th
to 4
th
c. BC;
Old Persian), Hellenistic (4
th
to 2
nd
c. BC Koine Greek) and Parthian
(2
nd
c. BC to 3
rd
c. AD; Middle Persian) times.
Grammatically, early forms of Armenian had much in common
with classical Greek and Latin, but the modern language (like
Modern Greek) has undergone many transformations. Interestingly enough, it shares with Italic
dialects the secondary IE suffix -ti(n), extended from -ti, cf. Arm (tyoun).
III. INDO-IRANIAN
The Indo-Iranian language group constitutes the easternmost extant branch of the Indo-European
family of languages. It consists of four language groups: the Indo-Aryan, Iranian, Nuristani, and
possibly Dardic, usually classified within the Indic subgroup. The term Aryan languages is also
traditionally used to refer to the Indo-Iranian languages.
The contemporary Indo-Iranian languages form the largest sub-branch of Indo-European, with more
than one billion speakers in total, stretching from Europe (Romani) and the Caucasus (Ossetian) to East
India (Bengali and Assamese). A 2005 estimate counts a total of 308 varieties, the largest in terms of
native speakers being Hindustani (Hindi and Urdu, ca. 540 million), Bengali (ca. 200 million), Punjabi
(ca. 100 million), Marathi and Persian (ca. 70 million each), Gujarati (ca. 45 million), Pashto (40
million), Oriya (ca. 30 million), Kurdish and Sindhi (ca. 20 million each).
Proto-Indo-Iranians are commonly identified with the bearers of the Andronovo culture and their
homeland with an area of the Eurasian steppe that borders the Ural River on the west, the Tian Shan on
the east where the Indo-Iranians took over the area occupied by the earlier Afanasevo culture , and
Transoxiana and the Hindu Kush on the south. Historical linguists broadly estimate that a continuum
of Indo-Iranian languages probably began to diverge by 2000 BC, preceding both the Vedic and Iranian
Armenian manuscript, ca.
5
th
-6
th
AD.
1. Introduction
67
cultures. A Two-wave model of Indo-Iranian expansion have been proposed (see Burrow 1973 and
Parpola 1999), strongly associated with the chariot.
Aryans spread into the Caucasus, the
Iranian plateau, and South Asia, as well
as into Mesopotamia and Syria,
introducing the horse and chariot
culture to this part of the world.
Sumerian texts from EDIIIb Ngirsu
(2500-2350 BC) already mention the
chariot' (gigir) and Ur III texts (2150-
2000 BC) mention the horse (anshe-zi-
zi). They left linguistic remains in a
Hittite horse-training manual written
by one Kikkuli the Mitannian. Other
evidence is found in references to the
names of Mitanni rulers and the gods
they swore by in treaties; these remains
are found in the archives of the
Mitanni's neighbors, and the time period for this is about 1500 BC.
The standard model for the entry of the Indo-European languages into South Asia is that the First
Wave went over the Hindu Kush, either into the headwaters of the Indus and later the Ganges. The
earliest stratum of Vedic Sanskrit, preserved only in the Rigveda, is assigned to roughly 1500 BC. From
the Indus, the Indo-Aryan languages spread from ca. 1500 BC to ca. 500 BC, over the northern and
central parts of the subcontinent, sparing the extreme south. The Indo-Aryans in these areas
established several powerful kingdoms and principalities in the region, from eastern Afghanistan to the
doorstep of Bengal.
The Second Wave is interpreted as the Iranian wave. The Iranians would take over all of Central
Asia, Iran, and for a considerable period, dominate the European steppe (the modern Ukraine) and
intrude north into Russia and west into central and eastern Europe well into historic times and as late
as the Common Era. The first Iranians to reach the Black Sea may have been the Cimmerians in the 8th
century BC, although their linguistic affiliation is uncertain. They were followed by the Scythians, who
are considered a western branch of the Central Asian Sakas, and the Sarmatian tribes.
The Medes, Parthians and Persians begin to appear on the Persian plateau from ca. 800 BC, and the
Achaemenids replaced Elamite rule from 559 BC. Around the first millennium of the Common Era, the
Map of the Sintashta-Petrovka culture (red), its expansion
into the Andronovo culture during the 2
nd
millennium BC,
showing the overlap with the BMAC in the south. The
location of the earliest chariots is shown in purple.
A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
Indo-European Language Association <http://dnghu.org/>
Iranian Pashtuns and Baloch began to settle on the eastern edge of the Iranian plateau, on the
mountainous frontier of northwestern Pakistan in what is now the North-West Frontier Province and
Balochistan, displacing the earlier Indo-Aryans from the area.
The main changes separating Proto-Indo-Iranian from Late PIE include:
Early satemization trend:
o Loss of PIE labio-velars into PII plain velars: k
w
k , g
w
g, g
wh
g
h
.
o Palatalization of PII velars in certain phonetic environments: k, g, g
h
h
.
Collapse of PIE ablauting vowels into a single PII vowel: e,oa; ,.
o A common exception is the Brugmanns law.
Grassmanns law, Bartholomaes law, and the Ruki sound law were also complete in PII.
NOTE. For a detailed description of those Indo-Iranian sound laws and the satemization process, see
Appendix II. For Ruki sound law, v.s. Baltic in 1.7.1.
Sonorants are generally stable in PII, but for PIE l PII r, just like lr.
Among the sound changes from Proto-Indo-Iranian to Indo-Aryan is the loss of the voiced sibilant *z;
among those to Iranian is the de-aspiration of the PIE voiced aspirates.
A. IRANIAN
The Iranian languages
are a branch of the Indo-
Iranian subfamily, with an
estimated 150-200 million
native speakers today, the
largest being Persian (ca. 60
million), Kurdish (ca. 25
million), Pashto (ca. 25
million) and Balochi (ca. 7
million).
Proto-Iranian dates to some
time after Proto-Indo-Iranian
breakup, or the early second millennium BC, as the Old Iranian languages began to break off and evolve
separately as the various Iranian tribes migrated and settled in vast areas of southeastern Europe, the
Iranian plateau, and Central Asia. The oldest Iranian language known, Avestan, is mainly attested
through the Avesta, a collection of sacred texts connected to the Zoroastrian religion.
Current distribution of Iranian dialects.
1. Introduction
69
Linguistically, the Old Iranian languages are divided into two major families, the Eastern and Western
group, and several subclasses. The so-called Eastern group includes Scythian, even though the Scyths
lived in a region extending further west than the Western group. The northwestern branch included
Median, and Parthian, while the southwestern branch included Old Persian.
B. INDO-ARYAN
The Indo-Aryan or Indic languages
are a branch of the Indo-Iranian
subfamily with a total number of native
speakers of more than 900 million. The
largest in terms of native speakers
being Hindustani (Hindi and Urdu,
about 540 million), Bangali (about 200
million), Punjabi (about 100 million),
Marathi (about 90 million), Gujarati
(about 45 million), Nepali (about 40
million), Oriya (about 30 million),
Sindhi (about 20 million) and
Assamese (about 14 million).
The earliest evidence of the group is
from Vedic Sanskrit, the language used
in the ancient preserved texts of the
Indian subcontinent, the foundational
canon of Hinduism known as the
Vedas. The Indo-Aryan superstrate in Mitanni is of similar age as the Rigveda, but the only evidence is a
number of loanwords.
In the 4
th
c. BC, the Sanskrit language was codified and standardised by the grammarian Panini, called
Classical Sanskrit by convention. Outside the learned sphere of Sanskrit, vernacular dialects (Prakrits)
continued to evolve and, in medieval times, diversified into various Middle Indic dialects.
C. NURISTANI
The recent view is to classify Nuristani as an independent branch of the Indo-Iranian language family,
instead of the the Indic or Iranian group. In any event, it would seem they arrived in their present
homeland at a very early date, and never entered the western Punjab of Pakistan.
A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
Indo-European Language Association <http://dnghu.org/>
1.7.3. OTHER INDO-EUROPEAN DIALECTS OF EUROPE
I. ALBANIAN
Albanian an Indo-European language
spoken by over 8 million people primarily in
Albania, Kosovo, and the Former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia, but also by smaller
numbers of ethnic Albanians in other parts of
the Balkans, along the eastern coast of Italy
and in Sicily, as well other emigrant groups.
The Albanian language has no living close
relatives among the modern languages. There
is no scholarly consensus over its origin and
dialectal classification, although some
scholars derive it from the Illyrian language,
and others claim that it derives from Thracian.
While it is considered established that the Albanians originated in the Balkans, the exact location from
which they spread out is hard to pinpoint. Despite varied claims, the Albanians probably came from
farther north and inland than would suggest the present borders of Albania, with a homeland
concentrated in the mountains.
NOTE. Given the overwhelming amount of shepherding and mountaineering vocabulary as well as the extensive
influence of Latin, it is more likely the Albanians come from north of the Jireek line, on the Latin-speaking side,
perhaps in part from the late Roman province of Dardania from the western Balkans. However, archaeology has
more convincingly pointed to the early Byzantine province of Praevitana (modern northern Albania) which shows
an area where a primarily shepherding, transhumance population of Illyrians retained their culture.
The period in which Proto-Albanian and Latin interacted was protracted and drawn out over six
centuries, 1
st
c. AD to 6
th
or 7
th
c. AD. This is born out into roughly three layers of borrowings, the largest
number belonging to the second layer. The first, with the fewest borrowings, was a time of less
important interaction. The final period, probably preceding the Slavic or Germanic invasions, also has a
notably smaller amount of borrowings. Each layer is characterized by a different treatment of most
vowels, the first layer having several that follow the evolution of Early Proto-Albanian into Albanian;
later layers reflect vowel changes endemic to Late Latin and presumably Proto-Romance. Other
formative changes include the syncretism of several noun case endings, especially in the plural, as well
as a large scale palatalization.
Albanian dialects Gheg, Tosk. Communities of
Arbresh- and Arvanitika-speakers
1. Introduction
71
A brief period followed, between 7
th
c. AD and 9
th
c. AD, that was marked by heavy borrowings from
Southern Slavic, some of which predate the oa shift common to the modern forms of this language
group. Starting in the latter 9
th
c. AD, a period followed of protracted contact with the Proto-Romanians,
or Vlachs, though lexical borrowing seems to have been mostly one sided from Albanian into
Romanian. Such a borrowing indicates that the Romanians migrated from an area where the majority
was Slavic (i.e. Middle Bulgarian) to an area with a majority of Albanian speakers, i.e. Dardania, where
Vlachs are recorded in the 10
th
c. AD. This fact places the Albanians at a rather early date in the Western
or Central Balkans, most likely in the region of Kosovo and Northern Albania.
References to the existence of Albanian as a distinct language survive from the 1300s, but without
recording any specific words. The oldest surviving documents written in Albanian are the Formula e
Pagzimit (Baptismal formula), Unte paghesont premenit tAtit e tBirit e tSpirit Senit, I baptize thee
in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, recorded by Pal Engjelli, Bishop of Durres
in 1462 in the Gheg dialect, and some New Testament verses from that period.
II. PALEO-BALKAN LANGUAGES
A. PHRYGIAN
The Phrygian language was the Indo-European
language spoken by the Phrygians, a people that settled in
Asia Minor during the Bronze Age. It survived probably
into the sixth century AD, when it was replaced by Greek
Ancient historians and myths sometimes did associate
Phrygian with Thracian and maybe even Armenian, on
grounds of classical sources. Herodotus recorded the
Macedonian account that Phrygians migrated into Asia
Minor from Thrace (7.73). Later in the text (7.73),
Herodotus states that the Armenians were colonists of the
Phrygians, still considered the same in the time of Xerxes I.
The earliest mention of Phrygian in Greek sources, in the
Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite, depicts it as different from Trojan: in the hymn, Aphrodite, disguising
herself as a mortal to seduce the Trojan prince Anchises, tells him:
Otreus of famous name is my father, if so be you have heard of him, and he reigns over all Phrygia
rich in fortresses. But I know your speech well beside my own, for a Trojan nurse brought me up at
home. Of Trojan, unfortunately, nothing is known.
Traditional Phrygian region and
expanded Kingdom.
A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
Indo-European Language Association <http://dnghu.org/>
Phrygian is attested by two corpora, one, Paleo-Phrygian, from
around 800 BC and later, and another after a period of several
centuries, Neo-Phrygian, from around the beginning of the Common
Era. The Paleo-Phrygian corpus is further divided geographically
into inscriptions of Midas-city, Gordion, Central, Bithynia, Pteria,
Tyana, Daskyleion, Bayindir, and various (documents divers). The
Mysian inscriptions show a language classified as a separate
Phrygian dialect, written in an alphabet with an additional letter, the
Mysian s. We can reconstruct some words with the help of some
inscriptions written with a script similar to the Greek one.
Ancient historians and myths sometimes did associate Phrygian
with Thracian and maybe even Armenian, on grounds of classical
sources. Herodotus recorded the Macedonian account that
Phrygians migrated into Asia Minor from Thrace (7.73). Later in the
text (7.73), Herodotus states that the Armenians were colonists of
the Phrygians, still considered the same in the time of Xerxes I. The
earliest mention of Phrygian in Greek sources, in the Homeric Hymn
to Aphrodite, depicts it as different from Trojan: in the hymn, Aphrodite, disguising herself as a mortal
to seduce the Trojan prince Anchises, tells him
Otreus of famous name is my father, if so be you have heard of him, and he reigns over all Phrygia
rich in fortresses. But I know your speech well beside my own, for a Trojan nurse brought me up at
home. Of Trojan, unfortunately, nothing is known.
Its structure, what can be recovered from it, was typically Indo-European, with nouns declined for
case (at least four), gender (three) and number (singular and plural), while the verbs are conjugated for
tense, voice, mood, person and number.
Phrygian seems to exhibit an augment, like Greek and Armenian, as in Phryg. eberet, probably
corresponding to PIE -b
h
er-e-t (cf. Gk. epheret).
A sizable body of Phrygian words are theoretically known; however, the meaning and etymologies and
even correct forms of many Phrygian words (mostly extracted from inscriptions) are still being debated.
A famous Phrygian word is bekos, meaning bread. According to Herodotus (Histories 2.9) Pharaoh
Psammetichus I wanted to establish the original language. For this purpose, he ordered two children to
be reared by a shepherd, forbidding him to let them hear a single word, and charging him to report the
childrens first utterance. After two years, the shepherd reported that on entering their chamber, the
Phrygian inscription in
Midas City.
1. Introduction
73
children came up to him, extending their hands, calling bekos. Upon enquiry, the pharaoh discovered
that this was the Phrygian word for wheat bread, after which the Egyptians conceded that the
Phrygian nation was older than theirs. The word bekos is also attested several times in Palaeo-Phrygian
inscriptions on funerary stelae. It was suggested that it is cognate to Eng. bake, from PIE b
h
eh
3
g-; cf.
Gk. phg, to roast, Lat. focus, fireplace, Arm. bosor, red, and bots flame, Ir. goba smith, etc.
Phryg. bedu (<PIE wed-) according to Clement of Alexandrias Stromata, quoting one Neanthus of
Cyzicus means water. The Macedonians are said to have worshiped a god called Bedu, which they
interpreted as air. The god appears also in Orphic ritual.
Other Phrygian words include:
Phryg. anar, husband, man, from PIE (a)nr, man; cf. Gk. anr, man, husband.
Phryg. belte, swamp, from PIE root b
h
el-, to gleam; cf. Gk. baltos, swamp.
Phryg. brater, brother, from PIE b
h
rter; cf. Gk. phrtr.
Phryg. ad-daket, does, causes, from PIE stem d
h
-k-; cf. Gk. ethka.
Phryg. germe, warm, from PIE g
wh
erms; cf. Gk. therms.
Phryg. gdan, earth, from PIE d
h
g
h
m; cf. Gk. khthn.
B. ILLYRIAN
The Illyrian languages are a group of
Indo-European languages that were spoken in
the western part of the Balkans in former
times by ethnic groups identified as Illyrians:
Delmatae, Pannoni, Illyrioi, Autariates,
Taulanti.
The main source of authoritative
information about the Illyrian language
consists of a handful of Illyrian words cited in
classical sources, and numerous examples of
Illyrian anthroponyms, ethnonyms, toponyms
and hydronyms. Some sound-changes and
other language features are deduced from what remains of the Illyrian languages, but because no
writings in Illyrian are known, there is not sufficient evidence to clarify its place within the Indo-
European language family aside from its probable Centum nature.
Roman provinces in the Balkans, 2
nd
century AD: A.
Spalatum (Split); 1. Raetia; 2. Noricum; 3. Pannonia;
4. Illyricum; 5. Dacia; 6. Moesia; 7. Tracia.
A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
Indo-European Language Association <http://dnghu.org/>
NOTE. A grouping of Illyrian with the Messapian language has been proposed for about a century, but remains
an unproven hypothesis. The theory is based on classical sources, archaeology, as well as onomastic
considerations. Messapian material culture bears a number of similarities to Illyrian material culture. Some
Messapian anthroponyms have close Illyrian equivalents. A relation to the Venetic language and Liburnian
language, once spoken in northeastern Italy and Liburnia respectively, is also proposed.
A grouping of Illyrian with the Thracian and Dacian language in a Thraco-Illyrian group or branch, an idea
popular in the first half of the 20
th
century, is now generally rejected due to a lack of sustaining evidence, and due
to what may be evidence to the contrary. Also, the hypothesis that the modern Albanian language is a surviving
Illyrian language remains very controversial among linguists.
B. THRACIAN
Excluding Dacian, whose status as a Thracian language is disputed, Thracian was spoken in in what
is now southern Bulgaria, parts of Serbia, the Republic of Macedonia, Northern Greece especially
prior to Ancient Macedonian expansion , throughout Thrace (including European Turkey) and in parts
of Bithynia (North-Western Asiatic Turkey). Most of the Thracians were eventually Hellenized (in the
province of Thrace) or Romanized (in Moesia, Dacia, etc.), with the last remnants surviving in remote
areas until the 5
th
century.
As an extinct language with only a few short inscriptions attributed to it (v.i.), there is little known
about the Thracian language, but a number of features are agreed upon. A number of probable Thracian
words are found in inscriptions most of them written with Greek script on buildings, coins, and
other artifacts. Some Greek lexical elements may derive from Thracian, such as balios, dappled (< PIE
b
h
el-, to shine, Pokorny also cites Illyrian as possible source), bounos, hill, mound, etc.
C. DACIAN
The Dacian language was an Indo-European language spoken by the ancient people of Dacia. It is
often considered to have been a northern variant of the Thracian language or closely related to it.
There are almost no written documents in Dacian. Dacian used to be one of the major languages of
South-Eastern Europe, stretching from what is now Eastern Hungary to the Black Sea shore. Based on
archaeological findings, the origins of the Dacian culture are believed to be in Moldavia, being identified
as an evolution of the Iron Age Basarabi culture.
It is unclear exactly when the Dacian language became extinct, or even whether it has a living
descendant. The initial Roman conquest of part of Dacia did not put an end to the language, as Free
Dacian tribes such as the Carpi may have continued to speak Dacian in Moldavia and adjacent regions
1. Introduction
75
as late as the 6
th
or 7
th
century AD, still capable of leaving some influences in the forming Slavic
languages.
According to one hypothesis,
a branch of Dacian continued
as the Albanian language
(Hasdeu, 1901). A refined
version of that hypothesis
considers Albanian to be a
Daco-Moesian Dialect that
split off from Dacian before
300 BC and that Dacian itself
became extinct.
NOTE. The arguments for this
early split before 300 BC include:
o Inherited Albanian words (e.g.
PIE mtr Alb. motr) shows the transformation Late PIE Alb. o, but all the Latin loans in Albanian
having an (<PIE ) shows Lat. Alb. a. Therefore, the transformation happened and ended before the
Roman arrival in the Balkans.
o Romanian substratum words shared with Albanian show a Rom. a that corresponds to Alb. o when the source
for both sounds is an original common (cf. mazre/modhull<*mdzula, pea; ra/ros<*rtja: duck);
therefore, when these words had the same common form in Pre-Romanian and Proto-Albanian the
transformation PIE Alb. o had not started yet.
The correlation between these two facts indicates that the split between Pre-Romanian (the Dacians that were
later Romanized) and Proto-Albanian happened before the Roman arrival in the Balkans.
E. PAIONIAN
The Paionian language is the poorly attested language of the ancient Paionians, whose kingdom
once stretched north of Macedon into Dardania and in earlier times into southwestern Thrace.
Classical sources usually considered the Paionians distinct from Thracians or Illyrians, comprising
their own ethnicity and language. Athenaeus seemingly connected the Paionian tongue to the Mysian
language, itself barely attested. If correct, this could mean that Paionian was an Anatolian language. On
the other hand, the Paionians were sometimes regarded as descendants of Phrygians, which may put
Paionian on the same linguistic branch as the Phrygian language.
Theoretical scenario: the Albanians as a migrant Dacian people
A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
Indo-European Language Association <http://dnghu.org/>
Modern linguists are uncertain on the classification of Paionian, due to the extreme scarcity of
materials we have on this language. However, it seems that Paionian was an independent IE dialect. It
shows a/o distinction and does not appear to have undergone Satemization. The Indo-European voiced
aspirates became plain voiced consonants, i.e. b
h
b, d
h
d, g
h
g, g
wh
g
w
; as in Illyrian, Thracian,
Macedonian and Phrygian (but unlike Greek).
F. ANCIENT MACEDONIAN
The Ancient Macedonian language was the tongue of the Ancient Macedonians. It was spoken in
Macedon during the 1
st
millennium BC. Marginalized from the 5
th
century BC, it was gradually replaced
by the common Greek dialect of the Hellenistic Era. It was probably spoken predominantly in the
inland regions away from the coast. It is as yet undetermined whether the language was a dialect of
Greek, a sibling language to Greek, or an Indo-European language which is a close cousin to Greek and
also related to Thracian and Phrygian languages.
Knowledge of the language is very limited because there are no surviving texts that are indisputably
written in the language, though a body of authentic Macedonian words has been assembled from
ancient sources, mainly from coin inscriptions, and from the 5
th
century lexicon of Hesychius of
Alexandria, amounting to about 150 words and 200 proper names. Most of these are confidently
identifiable as Greek, but some of them are not easily reconciled with standard Greek phonology. The
6,000 surving Macedonian inscriptions are in the Greek Attic dialect.
The Pella curse tablet, a text written in a distinct Doric Greek idiom, found in Pella in 1986, dated to
between mid to early 4
th
century BC, has been forwarded as an argument that the Ancient Macedonian
language was a dialect of North-Western Greek. Before the discovery it was proposed that the
Macedonian dialect was an early form of Greek, spoken alongside Doric proper at that time.
NOTE. Olivier Masson thinks that in contrast with earlier views which made of it an Aeolic dialect (O.Hoffmann
compared Thessalian) we must by now think of a link with North-West Greek (Locrian, Aetolian, Phocidian,
Epirote). This view is supported by the recent discovery at Pella of a curse tablet which may well be the first
The Pella katadesmos, is a katadesmos (a curse, or magic spell) inscribed on a lead scroll, probably
dating to between 380 and 350 BC. It was found in Pella in 1986
1. Introduction
77
Macedonian text attested (...); the text includes an adverb opoka which is not Thessalian. Also, James L.
ONeil states that the curse tablet from Pella shows word forms which are clearly Doric, but a different form of
Doric from any of the west Greek dialects of areas adjoining Macedon. Three other, very brief, fourth century
inscriptions are also indubitably Doric. These show that a Doric dialect was spoken in Macedon, as we would
expect from the West Greek forms of Greek names found in Macedon. And yet later Macedonian inscriptions are
in Koine avoiding both Doric forms and the Macedonian voicing of consonants. The native Macedonian dialect
had become unsuitable for written documents.
From the few words that survive, a notable sound-law may be ascertained, that PIE voiced aspirates
d
h
, b
h
, g
h
, appear as (=d[
h
]), (=b[
h
]), (=g[
h
]), in contrast to Greek dialects, which unvoiced them to
(=t
h
), (=p
h
), (=k
h
).
NOTE. Since these languages are all known via the Greek alphabet, which has no signs for voiced aspirates, it is
unclear whether de-aspiration had really taken place, or whether the supposed voiced stops , , were just
picked as the closest matches to express voiced aspirates b
h
, d
h
, g
h
.
PIH d
h
enh
2
-, to leave, A.Mac. (d[
h
]ans), death; cf. Attic (t
h
natos). PIH
h
2
aid
h
- A.Mac.* (ad[
h
]raia), bright weather, Attic (ait
h
ra).
PIE b
h
asko- A.Mac. (b[
h
]skioi), fasces. Compare also for A.Mac.
(ab[
h
]rotes) or (ab[
h
]rowes), Attic (op
h
rs), eyebrows; for Mac.
(B[
h
]erenk), Attic (P
h
erenk), bearing victory.
o According to Herodotus (ca. 440 BC), the Macedonians claimed that the Phryges were called
Brygoi (<PIE b
h
rugo-) before they migrated from Thrace to Anatolia ca. 1200 BC.
o In Aristophanes The Birds, the form (keblpyris), red-cap bird, shows a voiced
stop instead of a standard Greek unvoiced aspirate, i.e. Macedonian () (keb[
h
]al) vs.
Greek (kep
h
al), head.
If A.Mac. (gotn), pig, is related to PIE g
w
ou-, cow, this would indicate that the
labiovelars were either intact (hence *g
w
otn), or merged with the velars, unlike the usual Gk.
(bos).
NOTE. Such deviations, however, are not unknown within Greek dialects; compare Dor. - (glep-) for
common Gk. - (blep-), as well as Dor. (glchn) and Ion. (glchn) for Gk. (blchn).
Examples suggest that voiced velar stops were devoiced, especially word-initially: PIE genu-
A.Mac. (knadoi), jaws; PIE gomb
h
- A.Mac. (kmbous), molars.
o Compared to Greek words, there is A.Mac. (arkn) vs. Attic (args); the
Macedonian toponym Akesamenai, from the Pierian name Akesamenos if Akesa- is cognate
to Greek agassomai, agamai, to astonish; cf. also the Thracian name Agassamenos.
A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
Indo-European Language Association <http://dnghu.org/>
1.7.4. ANATOLIAN LANGUAGES
The Anatolian languages are a group of extinct
Indo-European languages, which were spoken in
Anatolia for millennia, the best attested of them
being the Hittite language.
The Anatolian branch is generally considered the
earliest to split off the Proto-Indo-European
language, from a stage referred to either as Middle
PIE or Indo-Hittite (PIH), typically a date ca. 3500
BC is assumed. Within a Kurgan framework, there
are two possibilities of how early Anatolian speakers
could have reached Anatolia: from the north via the
Caucasus, and from the west, via the Balkans.
NOTE. The term Indo-Hittite is somewhat imprecise, as
the prefix Indo- does not refer to the Indo-Aryan branch in
particular, but is iconic for Indo-European (as in Indo-
Uralic), and the -Hittite part refers to the Anatolian
language family as a whole.
Attested dialects of the Anatolian branch are:
Hittite (nesili), attested from ca. 1800 BC to 1100 BC, official language of the Hittite Empire.
Luwian (luwili), close relative of Hittite spoken in Arzawa, to the southwest of the core Hittite
area.
Palaic, spoken in north-central Anatolia, extinct around the 13
th
century BC, known only
fragmentarily from quoted prayers in Hittite texts.
Lycian, spoken in Lycia in the Iron Age, most likely a descendant of Luwian, extinct in ca. the 1
st
century BC. A fragmentary language, it is also a likely candidate for the language spoken by Trojans.
Lydian, spoken in Lydia, extinct in ca. the 1
st
century BC, fragmentary.
Carian, spoken in Caria, fragmentarily attested from graffiti by Carian mercenaries in Egypt from
ca. the 7
th
century BC, extinct ca. in the 3
rd
century BC.
Pisidian and Sidetic (Pamphylian), fragmentary.
Milyan, known from a single inscription.
There were likely other languages of the Anatolian branch that have left no written records, such as
the languages of Mysia, Cappadocia and Paphlagonia.
The approximate extent of the Hittite Old
Kingdom under Hantili I (ca. 1590 BC) in
darkest. Maximal extent of the Hittite Empire
ca. 1300 BC is shown in dark color, the
Egyptian sphere of influence in light color.
1. Introduction
79
Anatolia was heavily Hellenized following the conquests of
Alexander the Great, and it is generally thought that by the 1
st
century BC the native languages of the area were extinct.
Hittite proper is known from cuneiform tablets and inscriptions
erected by the Hittite kings and written in an adapted form of Old
Assyrian cuneiform orthography. Owing to the predominantly
syllabic nature of the script, it is difficult to ascertain the precise
phonetic qualities of a portion of the Hittite sound inventory.
NOTE. The script known as Hieroglyphic Hittite has now been shown
to have been used for writing the closely related Luwian language, rather
than Hittite proper. The later languages Lycian and Lydian are also
attested in Hittite territory.
The Hittite language has traditionally been stratified partly on
linguistic and partly on paleographic grounds into Old Hittite,
Middle Hittite and New or Neo-Hittite, corresponding to the Old, Middle and New Kingdoms of the
Hittite Empire, ca. 17501500 BC, 15001430 BC and 14301180 BC, respectively.
Luwian was spoken by population groups in Arzawa, to the west or southwest of the core Hittite area.
In the oldest texts, eg. the Hittite Code, the Luwian-speaking areas including Arzawa and Kizzuwatna
were called Luwia. From this homeland, Luwian
speakers gradually spread through Anatolia and
became a contributing factor to the downfall,
after circa 1180 BC, of the Hittite Empire, where
it was already widely spoken. Luwian was also
the language spoken in the Neo-Hittite states of
Syria, such as Milid and Carchemish, as well as
in the central Anatolian kingdom of Tabal that
flourished around 900 BC. Luwian has been
preserved in two forms, named after the writing
systems used: Cuneiform Luwian and
Hieroglyphic Luwian.
For the most part, the immediate ancestor of the known Anatolian languages, Common Anatolian
(the Late Proto-Anatolian spoken ca. 2500) has been reconstructed on the basis of Hittite. However, the
usage of Hittite cuneiform writing system limits the enterprise of understanding and reconstructing
Hittite pictographic writing
Luwian use according to inscriptions found
A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
Indo-European Language Association <http://dnghu.org/>
Anatolian phonology, partly due to the deficiency of the adopted Akkadian cuneiform syllabary to
represent Hittite sounds, and partly due to the Hittite scribal practices.
NOTE. This especially pertains to what appears to be confusion of voiceless and voiced dental stops, where signs
-dV- and -tV- are employed interchangeably different attestations of the same word. Furthermore, in the syllables
of the structure VC only the signs with voiceless stops as usually used. Distribution of spellings with single and
geminated consonants in the oldest extant monuments indicates that the reflexes of PIE voiceless stops were
spelled as double consonants and the reflexes of PIE voiced stops as single consonants. This regularity is the most
consistent in in the case of dental stops in older texts; later monuments often show irregular variation of this rule.
Known changes from Middle PIE into Common Anatolian include:
Voiced aspirates merged with voiced stops: d
h
d, b
h
b, g
h
g.
Voiceless stops become voiced after accented long-vowel or diphthong: PIH wk- CA wg-(cf.
Hitt. wk-, ask for); PH d
h
eh
1
ti, putting CA ddi (cf. Luw. taac- votive offfering).
Conditioned allophone PIH tj CA tsj, as Hittite still shows.
PIH h
1
is lost in CA, but for eh
1
, appearing as Hitt., Pal. , Luw., Lyc., Lyd. ; word-initial
h
2
x, non-initial h
2
h; h
3
h.
NOTE 1. Melchert proposes that CA x (voiceless fricative) is lenited to h (voiced fricative) under the same
conditions as voiceless stops. Also, word-initial h
3
is assumed by some scholars to have been lost already in CA.
NOTE 2. There is an important assimilation of laryngeals within CA: a sequence VRHV- becomes VRRV-; cf.
PIH sperh
1
V- Hitt. isparr-, kick flat; PIH sun-h
3
-V- Hitt. sunna-, fill, PuI. sunnuttil-, outpouring; eLc.
PIH sonorants are generally stable in CA. Only word-initial r has been eliminated. Word-initial
je- shows a trend to become CA e-, but the trend is not complete in CA, as Hittite shows.
Diphthong evolved as PIH ei CA long ; PIH eu CA . PIH oi, ai, ou, au, remain in CA.
NOTE. Common Anatolian preserves PIE vowel system basically intact. Some cite the merger of PIH o and a as
a Common Anatolian innovation, but according to Melchert that merger was secondary shared innovation in
Hittite, Palaic and Luwian, but not in Lycian. Also, the lengthening of accented short vowels in open syllables
cannot be of Common Anatolian, and neither can lengthening in accented closed syllables.
The CA nominal system shows an archaic productive declension in -i, -u. There are only two
grammatical genders, animate and inanimate.
Hittite verbs are inflected according to two general verbal classes, the mi- and the hi-conjugation.
NOTE. Rose (2006) lists 132 hi-verbs and interprets the hi/mi oppositions as vestiges of a system of
grammatical voice, i.e. centripetal voice vs. centrifugal voice. Additionally, the Hittite verbal system displays
two voices (active and mediopassive), two moods (indicative and imperative), and two tenses (present and
preterite), two infinitive forms, one verbal substantive, a supine, and a participle.
1. Introduction
81
1.8. MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
1.8.1. Modern Indo-European (MIE) is therefore a set of grammatical rules including its writing
system, noun declension, verbal conjugation and syntax , designed to systematize the reconstructed
PIE language, especially its Europes Indo-European dialect, already described above as the IE
dialect continuum spoken in Europe until ca. 2000 BC, to adapt it to modern communication needs.
Because that language was spoken by a prehistoric society, no genuine sample texts are available, and
thus comparative linguistics in spite of its 200 years history is not in the position to reconstruct
exactly their formal language (the one used by learned people at the time), but only approximately how
the spoken, vulgar language was like, i.e. the language that later evolved into the different attested Indo-
European dialects and languages.
NOTE. Reconstructed languages like Modern Hebrew, Modern Cornish, Modern Coptic or Modern Indo-
European may be revived in their communities without being as easy, as logical, as neutral or as philosophical as
the million artificial languages that exist today, and whose main aim is to be supposedly better, or easier, or
more neutral than other artificial or natural languages they want to substitute. Whatever the sociological,
psychological, political or practical reasons behind the success of such difficult and non-neutral languages
instead of universal ones, what is certain is that if somebody learns Hebrew, Cornish, Coptic or Indo-European
(or Latin, German, Swahili, Chinese, etc.) whatever the changes in the morphology, syntax or vocabulary that
could follow (because of, say, better or purer or easier language systems recommended by their language
regulators), the language learnt will still be the same, and the effort made wont be lost in any possible case.
1.8.2. We deemed it worth it to use the Proto-Indo-European reconstruction for the revival of a
complete modern language system, because of the obvious need of a common language within the EU,
to substitute the current deficient linguistic policy. This language system, called European or European
language (Eurpaiom), is mainly based on the features of the European or Northwestern dialects,
whose speakers as we have already seen remained in loose contact for some centuries after the first
Late PIE migrations, and have influenced each other in the last millenia within Europe.
NOTE. As Indo-Europeanist Lpez-Menchero puts it, there are three (Late) Proto-Indo-European languages
which might be distinguished today:
1) The actual Proto-Indo-European language, spoken by a prehistoric people, the PIE speakers of the Bronze
Age, some millennia ago;
2) The reconstructed Proto-Indo-European language, which is that being reconstructed by IE scholars using the
linguistic, archaeological and historical data available, and which is imperfect by nature, based on more or less
certain hypothesis and schools of thought; and
3) The Modern Indo-European language system which, being based on the later, and trying to come near to the
former, is neither one nor the other, but a modern language systematized to be used in the modern world.
A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
Indo-European Language Association <http://dnghu.org/>
NOTE 2. In that sense, some critics have considered the so-called Indo-European language revival to be
different from (and thus not comparable to) other language revivals, like as they put it Hebrew or Cornish,
because of the obvious differences that will exist between that ancient Proto-Indo-European language and the
Modern Indo-European or European language. It is important to note that, even though there is a general belief
that Modern Hebrew and Ancient Hebrew are the same languages, among Israeli scholars there have been
continuated calls for the Modern Hebrew language to be called Israeli Hebrew or just (preferably) Israeli,
due to the strong divergences that exist and further develop with its use between the modern language spoken
in Israel and its theoretical basis, Ancient Hebrew. On that interesting question, Prof. Ghilad Zuckermann
aconsiders that Israelis are brainwashed to believe they speak the same language as the prophet Isaiah, a purely
Semitic language, but this is false. It's time we acknowledge that Israeli is very different from the Hebrew of the
past. He points out to the abiding influence of modern Indo-European dialects especially Yiddish, Russian and
Polish , in vocabulary, syntax and phonetics, as imported by Israel's founders. The same could certainly be said
of Cornish and other language revivals, and even of some death languages with a continuated use, like the Modern
Latin language used by the Catholic Church, which is not comparable to the Classical Latin used by Cicero, not to
talk about the real, Vulgar Latin used by Romans. See <http://www.zuckermann.org/>.
1.8.5. Words to complete the MIE vocabulary (in case that no common PIE form is found) are to be
taken from present-day IE languages. Loan words from Greek and Latin, like philosophy, hypothesis,
aqueduct, etc. , as well as modern Indo-European borrowings from English, like software, from
French, like ambassador, from Spanish, like armadillo, from German, like Kindergarten, from Italian,
like casino, from Russian, like icon, from Hindi, like pajamas, etc. , should be used in a pure IE form
when possible. They are all Indo-European dialectal words, whose original meaning is easily
understood if translated; as, e.g. Greek loan photo could be used as MIE *phtos [p
h
-tos] or [f-tos],
a loan word, or as bhuotos [b
h
awo-tos], a loan translation of Gk. bright; it is derived from genitive
bhauots (EIE bhauess), in compound word bhauotogrbh, from verb bh, to shine, which
gives Gk. phosphorus and phot. The second, translated word, should be preferred.
2
See 2.9.4, point 4.
1.8.6. The use of modern PIE dialects is probably the best option as an International Auxiliary
Language too, because French, German, Spanish, and other natural and artificial languages proposed to
substitute English dominance, are only supported by their cultural or social communities, whereas IE
native speakers make up the majority of the worlds population, being thus the most democratic choice
for a language spoken within international organizations and between the different existing nations.
NOTE 1. Because Europes Indo-European had other sister dialects spoken at the same time, Hellenic (Modern
Proto-Greek) and Aryan (Modern Indo-Iranian) languages can also be revived in the regions where they are
currently spoken in the form of modern dialects, as they are not different from MIE than Swedish from Danish, or
Spanish from Portuguese. They might also serve as linguae francae for closely related languages or neighbouring
regions, i.e. Aryan for Asia, Hellenic for Albanian- and Armenian-speaking territories.
1. Introduction
83
NOTE 2. Anatolianism (Turkish Anadoluculuk) asserts that Turks descend from the indigenous population of
ancient Anatolia, based on historical and genetic views. Supported by Turkish intellectuals in the 20
th
century, it
became essential to the process of nation-building in Turkey, but was substituted by the Pan-Turkic nationalism
Mustafa Kemal Atatrk discouraged before his death. If accepted again, Turks could embrace their historical
culture by adopting Anatolian (CA), cousin dialect of EIE, PGk. and PII, as a modern second language for a
modern Turkey, which shares close historical and cultural ties with the European Union and Asia.
NOTE 3. Even though it is clear that our proposal is different from the Hebrew language revival, we think that:
a) Where Jews had only some formal writings, with limited vocabulary, of a language already dead five centuries
before they were expelled from Israel in 70 AD, Proto-Indo-European has a continuated history of use and
hundreds of living dialects and other very old dead dialects attested, so that its modern use can be considered less
artificial. Thus, even if we had tablets dating from 2000 BC in some dialectal predominant formal EIE language
(say, from Pre-Proto-Germanic), the current EIE reconstruction should probably still be used as the main source
for Indo-European revival in the European Union.
b) The common culture and religion was probably the basis for the Hebrew language revival in Israel. Proto-
Indo-European, whilst the mother tongue of some prehistoric tribe with an own culture and religion, spread into
different peoples, with different cultures and religions. There was never a concept of Indo-European community
after the migrations. But today Indo-European languages are spoken by the majority of the population in the
world and especially within Europe , and it is therefore possible to use it as a natural and culturally (also
religiously) neutral language, what may be a significant advantage of IE over any other natural language.
1.7.7. The noun Eurpaios comes from adjective eurpais, from special genitive Eurpai of Old
Greek (Eurp), (Eurp), both forms alternating already in the oldest Greek, and
both coming from the same PIE feminine ending (see 4.7.8). The Greek ending -ai-o- (see 4.7.8
for more on this special genitive in -ai) turns into Latin -ae-u-, and so Europaeus. The forms Eurp
and eurpais are, then, the correct ones in MIE, as they are the original Classical forms of a Greek
loan word widely used today in modern Indo-European languages other dialectal variants, as
eurpas, eurpaiks, eurpaisks, etc. could be also used.
NOTE 1. For Homer, Eurp was a mythological queen of Crete abducted by Zeus in bull form when still a
Phoenician princess , and not a geographical designation. Later Europa stood for mainland Greece, and by 500
BC its meaning had been extended to lands to the north. The name Europe is possibly derived from the Greek
words (eurs, broad, from PIH h
1
urhu-) and (ops, face, from PIH h
3
ek
w
-), thus maybe
reconstructible as MIE *rq broad having been an epithet of Earth in PIE religion. Others suggest it is based
on a Semitic word cognate with Akkadian erebu, sunset (cf. Arabic maghreb, Hebrew maariv), as from the
Middle Eastern vantage point, the sun does set over Europe. Likewise, Asia is sometimes thought to have derived
from a Semitic word such as the Akkadian asu, meaning sunrise, and is the land to the east from a Middle
Eastern perspective, thus maybe MIE *Erb. In Greek mythology (Erebos, deep blackness/darkness or
shadow) was the son of Chaos, the personification of darkness and shadow, which filled in all the corners and
crannies of the world. The word is probably from PIH h
1
reg
w
os (cf. O.N. rkkr, Goth. riqis, Skr. rajani, Toch.
orkm), although possibly also a loan from Semitic, cf. Hebrew erebh and Akkadian erebu, etc.
A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
Indo-European Language Association <http://dnghu.org/>
NOTE 2. Europe is a common evolution of Latin a-endings in French; as in Amerique for America, Belgique
for Belgica, Italie for Italia, etc. Eng. Europe is thus a French loan word, as may be seen from the other
continents names: Asia (not *Asy), Africa (not *Afrik), Australia (not *Australy), and America (not *Amerik).
NOTE 3. Only Modern Greek maintains the form (Eurpi) for the subcontinent, but still with adjective
(europaik), with the same old irregular a-declension and IE ethnic ending -iko-. In Latin there were
two forms: Europa, Europaeus, and lesser used Europe, Europensis. The later is usually seen in scientific terms.
NOTE 4. For adj. European, compare derivatives from O.Gk. eurpai-s (< IE eurp-ai-s), also in Lat.
europa-us -> M.Lat. europ-us, in turn giving It., Spa. europeo, Pt., Cat. europeu; from Late Latin base europ-
(< IE eurp-i-) are extended *europe-is, as Du. europees; from extended *europe-anos are Rom. europene, or
Fr. europen (into Eng. european); extended *europe-iskos gives common Germanic and Slavic forms (cf. Ger.
Europisch, Fris. europeesk, Sca. europeisk, Pl. europejski, common Sla. evropsk-, etc.); other extended forms are
Ir. Eorpai-gh, Lith. europo-s, Ltv. eiropa-s, etc. For European as a noun, compare, from *europ-anos, Du., Fris.
europeaan, from *europ-eros, Ger. Europer, from ethnic *-ikos, cf. Sla. evropejk-, Mod.Gk. europai-k, etc.
The regular genitive of the word Eurp in Modern Indo-European is Eurps, following the first
declension. The name of the European language system is Eurpiom, inanimate, because in the
oldest IE dialects attested, those which had an independent name for languages used the neuter, cf. Gk.
n.pl. (
h
ellnik), Skr. n.sg. (sasktam), also in Tacitus Lat. ucbulum latnum.
NOTE. In other IE languages, however, the language name is an adjective which defines the noun language,
and therefore its gender follows the general rule of concordance; cf. Lat. f. latna lingua, or the Slavic examples
3
;
hence MIE eurpai dghs or proper eurpai dghw, European language.
1.7.8. The term Indo-European comes from Greek (
h
Indos), Indus river, from Old Persian
Hindu - listed as a conquered territory by Darius I in the Persepolis terrace inscription.
NOTE 1. The Persian term (with an aspirated initial [s]) is cognate to Sindhu, the Sanskrit name of the Indus
river, but also meaning river generically in Indo-Aryan (cf. O.Ind. Saptasindhu, [region of the] seven rivers).
The Persians, using the word Hindu for Sindhu, referred to the people who lived near the Sindhu River as Hindus,
and their religion later became known as Hinduism. The words for their language and region, Hind or
Hindustan and Hindustan, come from the words Hindu and Hindustan, India or Indian region (referring to
the Indian subcontinent as a whole, see st) and the adjectival suffix -, meaning therefore originally Indian.
NOTE 2. Because the term Indo-European (or Indogermanisch in German) is common today to refer to the
reconstructed language, we decided to use that traditional name to describe the Proto-European language we want
to revive, as a way to familiarize the reader with the European or Europaio language system as a natural, dead
language, to distinguish it clearly from other language inventions. However, when speaking in European language,
Sindhueurpaiom (Indo-European), Prmo-Sindhueurpaiom
82
(Proto-Indo-European), or Eurps
Sindhueurpaiom (Europes Indo-European) should to the theoretical linguistic concepts that refer to the
ancient reconstructed dialects, while Eurpaiom (European) is clearly the best name for the modern language,
just like Israeli is probably the most suited name to refer to Modern Hebrew.
2. LETTERS AND SOUNDS
2.1 THE ALPHABETS OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
2.1.1. Indo-European doesnt have an old writing system to be revived with. In the regions where the
Europeans dwelled at least four thousand years ago, caves and stones probably still keep their ancient
pictographic writings, which used logograms (graphemes) to represent a morpheme or a whole word, as
did Egyptian hieroglyphic logographs or Old Chinese characters.
2.1.2. Indo-European dialects have adopted different alphabets during the last millennia, and all of
them should be usable today although the main alphabet for todays European Union is clearly the
Latin one. This is a summary table of Proto-Indo-European phonemes and their regular corresponding
letters in MIE alphabets: Greek, Latin, Cyrillic, Perso-Arabic and (alphasyllabary) Devangar.
A. VOWELS AND VOCALIC ALLOPHONES
Phoneme Greek Latin Persian Armenian Cyrillic Devan.
[a]
A a
[e]
E e
E e
[o]
O o
[u]
[e]
[o]
[i]
I i
[i]
[u]
U u
[o]
[r] R r
()
[l] L l
()
[m] M m
[n] N n
NOTE. The underdot diacritic (dot below) might be used to mark the sonorants, as , , , , v.i.
A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
Indo-European Language Association <http://dnghu.org/>
B. CONSONANTS AND CONSONANTAL SOUNDS
Phoneme Greek Latin Persian Armenian Cyrillic Devan.
[p]
P p
[b]
B b
[b
h
]
Bh bh
[t]
T t
/
[d]
D d
[d
h
]
Dh dh
[k]
K k
[g]
G g
[g
h
]
Gh gh
[k
w
]
( ) Q q
[g
w
]
Omicron
C c
[g
wh
]
Ch ch
[i]
J j, I i
/
,
( ),
[u]
( ) W w, U u
[r]
R r
[l]
L l
[m]
M m
[n]
N n
[s]
S s
2.1.2. The Latin Alphabet used for Modern Indo-European is similar to the English, which is in turn
borrowed from the Late Latin abecedarium. We also consider some digraphs part of the alphabet, as
they represent original Proto-Indo-European sounds, in contrast to those digraphs used mainly for
transcriptions of loan words.
NOTE 1. The Latin alphabet was borrowed in very early times from a Greek alphabet and did not at first contain
the letter G. The letters Y and Z were introduced still later, about 50 BC
NOTE 2. The names of the consonants in Indo-European are as follows - B, be (pronounced bay); Bh, bhe
(b
h
ay); C, ce (g
w
ay); Ch, che (g
wh
ay); D, de (day); Dh, dhe (d
h
ay); F, ef; G, ge (gay); Gh, ghe (g
h
ay); H, ha;
K, ka; L, el; M, em; N, en; P, pe; Q, qu; R, er; S, es; T, te; V, ve; W, wa; X, xa (cha); Z, zet.
2. Letters and Sounds
87
2.1.3. The Latin character C originally meant [g], a value always retained in the abbreviations C. (for
Gaius) and Cn. (for Gnaeus). That was probably due to Etruscan influence, which copied it from Greek
, Gamma, just as later Cyrillic , Ge.
NOTE 1. In early Latin C came also to be used for [k], and K disappeared except before in a few words, as Kal.
(Kalendae), Karthago. Thus there was no distinction in writing between the sounds [g] and [k]. This defect was
later remedied by forming (from C, the original [g]-letter) a new character G. Y and Z were introduced from the
Greek about 50 B.C., and occur mainly in loan words in Modern Indo-European.
NOTE 2. In Modern Indo-European, C is used (taking its oldest value) to represent the Indo-European
labiovelar [g
w
] in PIE words, while keeping its different European values [k], [ts], [ce], [tch], etc. when writing
proper names in the different modern IE languages.
2.1.4. The Latin [u] sound developed into Romance [v]; therefore V no longer adequately represented
[u] and the Latin alphabet had to develop an alternative letter. Modern Indo-European uses V mainly
for loan words, representing [v], while W is left for the consonantal sound [u].
NOTE. V originally denoted the vowel sound [u] (oo), and F stood for the sound of consonant [u] (from Gk. ,
digamma). When F acquired the value of our [f], V came to be used for consonant [u] as well as for the vowel [u].
2.1.5. The consonant cluster [ks] was in Ancient Greece written as Chi X (Western Greek) or Xi
(Eastern Greek). In the end, Chi was standardized as [k
h
] ([x] in modern Greek), while Xi represented
[ks]. In MIE, the X stands for [x], as in the Greek and Cyrillic alphabets, and not as in English.
NOTE. The Etruscans took over X from Old Western Greek, therefore it stood for [ks] in Etruscan and then in
Latin, and also in most languages which today use an alphabet derived from the Roman, including English.
Writing systems of the world today.
A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
Indo-European Language Association <http://dnghu.org/>
2.2. Classification of Sounds
2.2.1. The Vowels are a, e, i, o, u, and , , , , . The other letters are Consonants. The proper Indo-
European Diphthongs are ei, oi, ai, i, i, i, and eu, ou, au, u, u, u. In these diphthongs both
vowel sounds are heard, one following the other in the same syllable.
2.2.2. Consonants are either voiced (sonant) or voiceless (surd). Voiced consonants are pronounced
with vocal cords vibration, as opposed to voiceless consonants, where the vocal cords are relaxed.
a. The voiced consonants are b, bh, d, dh, g, gh, c, ch, l, r, m, n, z, and j, w.
b. The voiceless consonants are p, t, k, q, f, h, s, x.
c. The digraphs bh, dh, gh and ch represent the proper Indo-European voiced aspirates, whereas ph,
th, and kh are voiceless aspirates, mostly confined to foreign words, usually from Greek. They are
equivalent to p+h, t+h, k+h, i.e. to the corresponding mutes with a following breath, as in English loop-
hole, hot-house, block-house.
d. The consonants r, l, m, n, and the semivowels j and w, can function both as consonants and
vowels, i.e. they can serve as syllabic border or center. There is a clear difference between the vocalic
allophones of the semivowels and the sonants, though: the first, i and u, are very stable as syllabic
center, while r, l, m, n arent, as they cannot be pronounced more opened. Hence the big differences in
their evolution, depending on the individual dialects.
2.2.3. The Mutes are also classified as follows:
Labials p, b, bh
Dentals t, d, dh
Velars k, g, gh; q, c, ch
2.2.4. The Liquids are l, r. These sounds are voiced. The group rh represents the aspirated [r], mainly
in words of Greek origin. Other groups include rr, the alveolar trill, and its aspirated counterpart rrh.
There is also lj, the palatal lateral approximant.
2.2.5. The Nasals are m,n. These are voiced. The pair nj represents the palatal nasal (similar to the [n]
sound in English onion or canyon).
2.2.6. The Fricatives are s, h. These are voiceless, but for the s before voiced consonants, where it is
usually voiced. It is also possible to write mainly for loan words voiceless and voiced pairs:
labiodentals, f and v; dentals, th and dh; post-alveolar sh and zh. And also the alveolar voiced z, and
the dorsal voiceless x.
2.2.7. The Semivowels are found written as i, j and u, w. These are voiced.
2. Letters and Sounds
89
NOTE. The semivowels are usually written with i and u when using the Latin alphabet. Only Proto-Indo-
European roots and their derivatives have j and w; as in wqos, wolf, werdhom, verb, jugm, yoke, or trejes,
three. When there is a consonantal sound before a sonant, it is always written j or w; as in new [ne-un], nine.
For more on this, see 2.9.4.
2.2.8. There are also some other frequent compounds, such as ks, ts, dz, tsh, dzh, ...
Phonet. System Labials Coronals *Palatovelars Velars Labiovelars *Laryngeals
Voiceless p t *k
j
k k
w
Voiced b d *g
j
g g
w
Aspirated b
h
d
h
*g
jh
g
h
g
wh
Nasals m n
Fricatives s , z *h
1
, *h
2
, *h
3
Liquids r , l
Approximant
u i
NOTE 1. [z] was already heard in Late Proto-Indo-European, as a different pronunciation (allophone) of [s]
before voiced consonants, and because of that it is an alternative writing in MIE, as in PIE nizdos (for ni-sd-os),
nest, which comes from PIE roots ni, down, and zero-grade -sd- of sed, sit.
NOTE 2. The existence of a distinctive row of PIE satemizable velars, the so-called palatovelars, has been the
subject of much debate over the last century of IE studies. Today the question is, however, usually deemed solved,
with a majority of modern scholars supporting only two types of velars in Late PIE generally Velars and
Labiovelars, although other solutions have been proposed. The support of neogrammarians to the palatals in
Late PIE, as well as its acceptance in Brugmanns Grundri and Pokornys Wrterbuch, has extended the
distinction to many (mainly etymological) works, which dont deal with the phonological reconstruction problem
directly. Palatovelars might be found in PII, though, and can be written as , , h h. See Appendix II.2.
The symbols h
1
, h
2
, h
3
, with cover symbol H (traditionally
1
,
2
,
3
and intervocalic ) stand for the three
supposed laryngeal phonemes of PIH, which had evolved differently already in Late PIE and in Anatolian. There
is no consensus as to what these phonemes were, but it is widely accepted that PIH h
2
was probably uvular or
pharyngeal, and that h
3
was labialized. Commonly cited possibilities are , ,
w
and x, ~, x
w
; there is some
evidence that h
1
may have been two consonants, and h, that fell together. See Appendix II.3.
2.3. SOUNDS OF THE LETTERS
2.3.1 The following pronunciation scheme is substantially that used by the common Europes Indo-
European speakers in roughly 2500 BC, when the laryngeal phonemes had already disappeared, having
coloured following vowels, and lengthened preceding ones.
A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
Indo-European Language Association <http://dnghu.org/>
NOTE. MIE cannot permit dialectal phonetic differences, whether vocalic or consonantal like Grimms Law
effects in PGmc. consonants, already seen , because systematization in the pronunciation is especially needed
when targeting a comprehensible common language. The situation for sister dialects Hellenic, Aryan and
Anatolian is different, though.
2.3.2. Vowels:
[u] as in father [a] as in idea
[e] as in they [e] as in met
[i] as in meet [i] as in chip
[o] as in note [o] as in pot
[o] as in rude [u] as in put
NOTE 1. Following the mainstream laryngeals theory, Proto-Indo-Hittite knew only two vowels, e and o, while
the other commonly reconstructed vowels were earlier combinations with laryngeals. Thus, short vowels PIE a <
h
2
e; e < (h
1
)e; o < h
3
e, (h
1
)o; long vowels < eh
2
; < eh
1
; < eh
3
, oh. The output of h
2
o was either a or o, after
the different schools. Short and long vowels and are just variants of the semivowels *j and *w.
NOTE 2. The sonants may have been lengthened too (usually because of compensatory lengthenings), especially
in the conjugation of verbs, giving thus [r.], [l.], [m.], [n.], written as r, l, m, n. The semivowels can also have a
prolonged pronunciation, giving allophones ij and uw. For more details on this see 2.7.2.
NOTE 3. It is recommended to mark long vowels with a macron,
-
k
w
os], which gave Common Greek wluk
w
os. Other possible examples are
dek [de-k