Proto indo European language -

This thesis presented by Yadav Yogesh kumar Rohi belong to village Azad pur district Aligarh-
_________________________________________
Proto-Indo-European (PIE) is the linguistic reconstruction of the common ancestor of the Indo-European languages, the most widely spoken language family in the world. Far more work has gone into reconstructing PIE than any other proto-language, and it is by far the best understood of all proto-languages of its age. The vast majority of linguistic work during the 19th century was devoted to the reconstruction of PIE or its daughter proto-languages (e.g. Proto-Germanic), and most of the modern techniques of linguistic reconstruction such as the comparative method were developed as a result. These methods supply all of the knowledge concerning PIE since there is no written record of the language. PIE is estimated to have been spoken as a single language from 4,500 B.C.E. to 2,500 B.C.E.[1] during the Neolithic Age, though estimates vary by more than a thousand years. According to the prevailing Kurgan hypothesis, the original homeland of the Proto-Indo-Europeans may have been in the Pontic–Caspian steppe of Eastern Europe. The linguistic reconstruction of PIE has also provided insight into the culture and religion of its speakers.[2] As Proto-Indo-Europeans became isolated from each other through the Indo-European migrations, the dialects of PIE spoken by the various groups diverged by undergoing certain sound laws and shifts in morphology to transform into the known ancient and modern Indo-European languages. PIE had an elaborate system of morphology that included inflectional suffixes as well as ablaut (vowel alterations, for example, as preserved in English sing, sang, sung) and accent. PIE nominals and pronouns had a complex system of declension, and verbs similarly had a complex system of conjugation. The PIE phonology, particles, numerals, and copula are also well-reconstructed. Today, the most widely-spoken daughter languages of PIE are Spanish, English, Hindustani (Hindi and Urdu), Portuguese, Bengali, Russian, Punjabi, German, Persian, French, Italian and Marathi. Development of the theoryEdit Classification of Indo-European languages. Red: Extinct languages. White: categories or unattested proto-languages. Left half: centum languages; right half: satem languages There is no direct evidence of PIE. It has been reconstructed from its present-day descendants using the comparative method.[3] The comparative method is based on the Neogrammarian rule that the Indo-European sound laws are applied without exception. The method compares languages and uses the sound laws to find a common ancestor. For example, compare the pairs of words in Italian and English: piede and foot, padre and father, pesce and fish. Since there is a consistent correspondence of the initial consonants that is far too frequent to be coincidental, the languages can be assumed to stem from a common parent.[4] Many consider William Jones, an Anglo-Welsh philologist and puisne judge in Bengal, to have begun Indo-European studies when he postulated the common ancestry of Sanskrit, Latin, and Greek.[5] Although his name is closely associated with this observation, he was not the first to make it. In the 1500s, European visitors to the subcontinent became aware of similarities between Indo-Iranian languages and European languages,[6] and as early as 1653 Marcus Zuerius van Boxhorn had published a proposal for a proto-language ("Scythian") for the following language families: Germanic, Romance, Greek, Baltic, Slavic, Celtic, and Iranian.[7] In a memoir sent to the Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres in 1767 Gaston-Laurent Coeurdoux, a French Jesuit who spent all his life in India had specifically demonstrated the analogy between Sanskrit and European languages.[8] In many ways, Jones' work was less accurate than his predecessors', as he erroneously included Egyptian, Japanese and Chinese in the Indo-European languages, while omitting Hindi. In 1818, Rasmus Christian Rask elaborated the set of correspondences to include other Indo-European languages, such as Sanskrit and Greek, and the full range of consonants involved. In 1816 Franz Bopp published On the System of Conjugation in Sanskrit in which he investigated a common origin of Sanskrit, Persian, Greek, Latin, and German. In 1833 he began publishing the Comparative Grammar of Sanskrit, Zend, Greek, Latin, Lithuanian, Old Slavic, Gothic, and German.[9] In 1822, Jacob Grimm formulated what is now known as Grimm's law as a general rule in his Deutsche Grammatik. Grimm showed correlations between the Germanic and other Indo-European languages and demonstrated that sound change affects an entire language systematically, and not just some words.[10] The Neogrammarians proposed that sound laws have no exceptions, as shown in Verner's law, published in 1876, which resolved apparent exceptions to Grimm's law by exploring the role that accent (stress) played in language change.[11] August Schleicher's A Compendium of the Comparative Grammar of the Indo-European, Sanskrit, Greek and Latin Languages (1874–77) was an early attempt to reconstruct the proto-Indo-European language.[12] By the early 1900s, well-defined descriptions of PIE had been developed that are still accepted today. The largest developments since then were the discovery of the Anatolian and Tocharian languages and the acceptance of the laryngeal theory. This theory aims to produce greater regularity in the linguistic reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European phonology than in the reconstruction generated by the comparative method. Julius Pokorny's Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch ("Indo-European Etymological Dictionary", 1959) gave a detailed, though conservative, overview of the lexical knowledge accumulated up until that time. Kuryłowicz's 1956 Apophonie, gave a better understanding of the Indo-European ablaut. From the 1960s, knowledge of Anatolian became robust enough to establish its relationship to PIE. Historical and geographical settingEdit Multiple hypotheses have been suggested about when, where, and by whom PIE was spoken with the Kurgan hypothesis, first put forward by Marija Gimbutas, being the most popular of these.[13][14] It proposes that Kurgans from the Pontic–Caspian steppe north of the Black Sea were the original speakers of PIE.[15][16] According to the theory, PIE became widespread because its speakers, the Kurgans, were able to migrate into a vast area of Europe and Asia, thanks to technologies such as the domestication of the horse, herding, and the use of wheeled vehicles.[16] The people of these cultures were nomadic pastoralists, who, according to the model, by the early 3rd millennium BC had expanded throughout the Pontic-Caspian steppe and into Eastern Europe.[17] Other theories include the Anatolian hypothesis,[18] the Armenia hypothesis, the Paleolithic Continuity Theory, and the indigenous Aryans theory.[citation needed] Due to early language contact, there are some lexical similarities between the Kartvelian and Proto-Indo-European languages.[19] Subfamilies (clades)Edit The following are listed by their theoretical glottochronological development:[18][20][21] Subfamily cladesEdit DescriptionModern descendants Proto-AnatolianAll now extinct, the best attested being the Hittite language.None Proto-TocharianAn extinct branch known from manuscripts dating from the 6th to the 8th century AD, which were found in north-west China.None Proto-ItalicThis included many languages, but only descendants of Latin survive.Portuguese and Galician, Spanish, Catalan, French, Italian, Romanian, Aromanian, Rhaeto-Romance Proto-CelticThe ancestor language of all known Celtic languages. These languages were once spoken across Europe, but modern Celtic languages are mostly confined to the north-western edge of Europe.Irish, Scottish Gaelic, Welsh, Breton, Cornish, Manx Proto-GermanicThe reconstructed proto-language of the Germanic languages. It developed into three branches: West Germanic, East Germanic (now extinct), and North Germanic.English, German, Afrikaans, Dutch, Norwegian, Danish, Swedish, Frisian, Icelandic, Faroese Proto-Balto-SlavicBranched into the Baltic languages and the Slavic languages.Baltic Latvian and Lithuanian; Slavic Russian, Ukrainian, Belarussian, Polish, Czech, Slovak, Serbo-Croatian, Bulgarian, Slovenian, Macedonian Proto-Indo-IranianBranched into the Indo-Aryan, Iranian and Nuristani languages.Nuristani; Indic Hindustani, Bengali, Punjabi, Dardic; Iranic Persian, Pashto, Balochi, Kurdish, Zaza Proto-ArmenianEastern Armenian, Western Armenian Proto-GreekModern Greek, Romeyka, Tsakonian Albanian cannot be confidently placed within any other subfamily.[22]Albanian Other possible groupings include Italo-Celtic, Graeco-Aryan, Graeco-Armenian, Graeco-Phrygian, Daco-Thracian, and Thraco-Illyrian. Marginally attested languagesEdit The Lusitanian language is a marginally attested language found in the area of modern Portugal. The Paleo-Balkan languages, which occur in or near the Balkan peninsula, do not appear to be members of any of the subfamilies of PIE but are so poorly attested that proper classification of them is not possible. PhonologyEdit Main article: Proto-Indo-European phonology Proto-Indo-European phonology has been reconstructed in some detail. Notable features of the most widely accepted (but not uncontroversial) reconstruction include three series of stop consonants reconstructed as voiceless, voiced, and breathy voiced; sonorant consonants that could be used syllablically; three so-called laryngeal consonants, whose exact pronunciation is not well-established but which are believed to have existed in part based on their visible effects on adjacent sounds; the fricative /s/; and a five-vowel system of which /e/ and /o/ were the most frequently occurring vowels. The Proto-Indo-European accent is reconstructed today as having had variable lexical stress, which could appear on any syllable and whose position often varied among different members of a paradigm (e.g. between singular and plural of a verbal paradigm). Stressed syllables received a higher pitch; therefore it is often said that PIE had pitch accent. The location of the stress is associated with ablaut variations, especially between normal-grade vowels (/e/ and /o/) and zero-grade (i.e. lack of a vowel), but not entirely predictable from it. The accent is best preserved in Vedic Sanskrit and (in the case of nouns) Ancient Greek, and indirectly attested in a number of phenomena in other IE languages. To account for mismatches between the accent of Vedic Sanskrit and Ancient Greek, as well as a few other phenomena, a few historical linguists prefer to reconstruct PIE as a tone language where each morpheme had an inherent tone; the sequence of tones in a word then evolved, according to that hypothesis, into the placement of lexical stress in different ways in different IE branches.[citation needed] MorphologyEdit RootEdit Proto-Indo-European roots were affix-lacking morphemes which carried the core lexical meaning of a word and were used to derive related words (e.g., "-friend-" in the English words "befriend", "friends", and "friend" by itself). Proto-Indo-European was a fusional language, in which inflectional morphemes signalled the grammatical relationships between words. This dependence on inflectional morphemes means that roots in PIE, unlike those found in English, were rarely found by themselves. A root plus a suffix formed a word stem, and a word stem plus a desinence (usually an ending) formed a word.[23] AblautEdit Many morphemes in Proto-Indo-European had short e as their inherent vowel; the Indo-European ablaut is the change of this short e to short o, long e (ē), long o (ō), or no vowel. This variation in vowels occurred both within inflectional morphology (e.g., different grammatical forms of a noun or verb may have different vowels) and derivational morphology (e.g., a verb and an associated abstract verbal noun may have different vowels).[24] Categories that PIE distinguished through ablaut were often also identifiable by contrasting endings, but the loss of these endings in some later Indo-European languages has led them to use ablaut alone to identify grammatical categories, as in the Modern English words sing, sang, sung. NounEdit Proto-Indo-European nouns are declined for eight or nine cases:[25] nominative: marks the subject of a verb, such as They in They ate. Words that follow a linking verb and rename the subject of that verb also use the nominative case. Thus, both They and linguists are in the nominative case in They are linguists. The nominative is the dictionary form of the noun. accusative: used for the direct object of a transitive verb. genitive: marks a noun as modifying another noun. dative: used to indicate the indirect object of a transitive verb, such as Jacob in Maria gave Jacob a drink. instrumental: marks the instrument or means by, or with which, the subject achieves or accomplishes an action. It may be either a physical object or an abstract concept. ablative: used to express motion away from something. locative: corresponds vaguely to the English prepositions in, on, at, and by. vocative: used for a word that identifies an addressee. A vocative expression is one of direct address where the identity of the party spoken to is set forth expressly within a sentence. For example, in the sentence, "I don't know, John", John is a vocative expression that indicates the party being addressed. allative: used as a type of locative case that expresses movement towards something. Only the Anatolian languages maintain this case, and it may not have existed in Proto-Indo-European at all.[26] There were three grammatical genders: masculine feminine neuter PronounEdit Proto-Indo-European pronouns are difficult to reconstruct, owing to their variety in later languages. PIE had personal pronouns in the first and second grammatical person, but not the third person, where demonstrative pronouns were used instead. The personal pronouns had their own unique forms and endings, and some had two distinct stems; this is most obvious in the first person singular where the two stems are still preserved in English I and me. There were also two varieties for the accusative, genitive and dative cases, a stressed and an enclitic form.[27] Personal pronouns[27] First personSecond person SingularPluralSingularPlural Nominative*h₁eǵ(oH/Hom)*wei*tuH*yuH Accusative*h₁mé, *h₁me*nsmé, *nōs*twé*usmé, *wōs Genitive*h₁méne, *h₁moi*ns(er)o-, *nos*tewe, *toi*yus(er)o-, *wos Dative*h₁méǵʰio, *h₁moi*nsmei, *ns*tébʰio, *toi*usmei Instrumental*h₁moí*nsmoí*toí*usmoí Ablative*h₁med*nsmed*tued*usmed Locative*h₁moí*nsmi*toí*usmi VerbEdit Proto-Indo-European verbs, like the nouns, exhibited a system of ablaut. The most basic categorization for the Indo-European verb was grammatical aspect. Verbs were classed as: stative: verbs that depict a state of being imperfective: verbs depicting ongoing, habitual or repeated action perfective: verbs depicting a completed action or actions viewed as an entire process. Verbs have at least four grammatical moods: indicative: indicates that something is a statement of fact; in other words, to express what the speaker considers to be a known state of affairs, as in declarative sentences. imperative: forms commands or requests, including the giving of prohibition or permission, or any other kind of advice or exhortation. subjunctive: used to express various states of unreality such as wish, emotion, possibility, judgment, opinion, obligation, or action that has not yet occurred optative: indicates a wish or hope. It is similar to the cohortative mood and is closely related to the subjunctive mood. Verbs had two grammatical voices: active: used in a clause whose subject expresses the main verb's agent. mediopassive: for the middle voice and the passive voice. Verbs had three grammatical persons: (first, second and third) Verbs had three grammatical numbers: singular dual: referring to precisely two of the entities (objects or persons) identified by the noun or pronoun. plural: a number other than singular or dual. Verbs were also marked by a highly developed system of participles, one for each combination of tense and voice, and an assorted array of verbal nouns and adjectival formations. The following table shows a possible reconstruction of the PIE verb endings from Sihler, which largely represents the current consensus among Indo-Europeanists. Sihler (1995)[28] AthematicThematic Singular1st*-mi*-oh₂ 2nd*-si*-esi 3rd*-ti*-eti/-ei Dual1st*-wos*-owos 2nd*-th₁es*-eth₁es 3rd*-tes*-etes Plural1st*-mos*-omos 2nd*-te*-ete 3rd*-nti*-onti NumbersEdit Proto-Indo-European numerals are generally reconstructed as follows: Sihler[28] one*Hoi-no-/*Hoi-wo-/*Hoi-k(ʷ)o-; *sem- two*d(u)wo- three*trei- (full grade), *tri- (zero grade) four*kʷetwor- (o-grade), *kʷetur- (zero grade) (see also the kʷetwóres rule) five*penkʷe six*s(w)eḱs; originally perhaps *weḱs seven*septm̥ eight*oḱtō, *oḱtou or *h₃eḱtō, *h₃eḱtou nine*(h₁)newn̥ ten*deḱm̥(t) Rather than specifically 100, *ḱm̥tóm may originally have meant "a large number".[29] ParticleEdit Proto-Indo-European particles could be used both as adverbs and postpositions, like *upo "under, below". The postpositions became prepositions in most daughter languages. Other reconstructible particles include negators (*ne, *mē), conjunctions (*kʷe "and", *wē "or" and others) and an interjection (*wai!, an expression of woe or agony). Syntax Relationships to other language families In popular culture See also References Further reading External links RELATED ARTICLES Thematic vowel Proto-Indo-European nominals Proto-Indo-European root 😯😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎