INDO
- EUROPEAN LANGUAGES
Present-day
distribution of Indo-European languages in Eurasia
|
|
Albanian |
|
|
|
|
|
Armenian |
|
|
|
|
|
Balto-Slavic
(Baltic) |
|
|
|
|
|
Balto-Slavic
(Slavic) |
|
|
|
|
|
Celtic |
|
|
|
|
|
Germanic |
|
|
|
|
|
Greek |
|
|
|
|
|
Indo-Iranian
(Indo-Aryan, Iranian, and Nuristani) |
|
|
|
|
|
Romance |
|
|
|
|
|
Non-Indo-European
languages |
Dotted/striped
areas indicate where multilingualism is common
Notes :
Italicized branches mean only one extant language of the branch
remains † indicates this branch of the language family is
extinct.
The
Indo-European languages are a large language family native to western
and southern Eurasia. It comprises most of the languages of Europe
together with those of the northern Indian Subcontinent and the
Iranian Plateau. A few of these languages, such as English, French,
Portuguese and Spanish, have expanded through colonialism in the
modern period and are now spoken across all continents. The Indo-European
family is divided into several branches or sub-families, the largest
of which are the Indo-Iranian, Germanic, Romance, and Balto-Slavic
groups. The most populous individual languages within them are Spanish,
English, Hindustani (Hindi/Urdu), Portuguese, Bengali, Marathi,
Punjabi, and Russian, each with over 100 million speakers. German,
French, Italian, and Persian have more than 50 million each. In
total, 46% of the world's population (3.2 billion) speaks an Indo-European
language as a first language, by far the highest of any language
family. There are about 445 living Indo-European languages, according
to the estimate by Ethnologue, with over two thirds (313) of them
belonging to the Indo-Iranian branch.
All
Indo-European languages have descended from a single prehistoric
language, reconstructed as Proto-Indo-European, spoken sometime
in the Neolithic era. Its precise geographical location, the Indo-European
urheimat, is unknown and has been the object of many competing hypotheses;
the most widely accepted is the Kurgan hypothesis, which posits
the urheimat to be the Pontic–Caspian steppe, associated with
the Yamnaya culture around 3000 BC. By the time the first written
records appeared, Indo-European had already evolved into numerous
languages spoken across much of Europe and south-west Asia. Written
evidence of Indo-European appeared during the Bronze Age in the
form of Mycenaean Greek and the Anatolian languages, Hittite and
Luwian. The oldest records are isolated Hittite words and names
– interspersed in texts that are otherwise in the unrelated
Old Assyrian language, a Semitic language – found in the texts
of the Assyrian colony of Kültepe in eastern Anatolia in the
20th century BC. Although no older written records of the original
Proto-Indo-Europeans remain, some aspects of their culture and religion
can be reconstructed from later evidence in the daughter cultures.
The Indo-European family is significant to the field of historical
linguistics as it possesses the second-longest recorded history
of any known family, after the Afroasiatic family in the form of
the Egyptian language and the Semitic languages. The analysis of
the family relationships between the Indo-European languages and
the reconstruction of their common source was central to the development
of the methodology of historical linguistics as an academic discipline
in the 19th century.
The
Indo-European family is not known to be linked to any other language
family through any more distant genetic relationship, although several
disputed proposals to that effect have been made.
During
the nineteenth century, the linguistic concept of Indo-European
languages was frequently used interchangeably with the racial concepts
of Aryan and the Biblical concept of Japhetite.
History
of Indo-European linguistics :
In the 16th century, European visitors to the Indian subcontinent
began to notice similarities among Indo-Aryan, Iranian, and European
languages. In 1583, English Jesuit missionary and Konkani scholar
Thomas Stephens wrote a letter from Goa to his brother (not published
until the 20th century) in which he noted similarities between Indian
languages and Greek and Latin.
Another
account was made by Filippo Sassetti, a merchant born in Florence
in 1540, who travelled to the Indian subcontinent. Writing in 1585,
he noted some word similarities between Sanskrit and Italian (these
included devahidio "God", sarpah/serpe "serpent",
sapta/sette "seven", asta/otto "eight", and
nava/nove "nine"). However, neither Stephens' nor Sassetti's
observations led to further scholarly inquiry.
In
1647, Dutch linguist and scholar Marcus Zuerius van Boxhorn noted
the similarity among certain Asian and European languages and theorized
that they were derived from a primitive common language which he
called Scythian. He included in his hypothesis Dutch, Albanian,
Greek, Latin, Persian, and German, later adding Slavic, Celtic,
and Baltic languages. However, Van Boxhorn's suggestions did not
become widely known and did not stimulate further research.
Franz
Bopp, pioneer in the field of comparative linguistic studies
Ottoman Turkish traveler Evliya Çelebi visited Vienna in
1665–1666 as part of a diplomatic mission and noted a few
similarities between words in German and in Persian. Gaston Coeurdoux
and others made observations of the same type. Coeurdoux made a
thorough comparison of Sanskrit, Latin and Greek conjugations in
the late 1760s to suggest a relationship among them. Meanwhile,
Mikhail Lomonosov compared different language groups, including
Slavic, Baltic ("Kurlandic"), Iranian ("Medic"),
Finnish, Chinese, "Hottentot" (Khoekhoe), and others,
noting that related languages (including Latin, Greek, German and
Russian) must have separated in antiquity from common ancestors.
The
hypothesis reappeared in 1786 when Sir William Jones first lectured
on the striking similarities among three of the oldest languages
known in his time: Latin, Greek, and Sanskrit, to which he tentatively
added Gothic, Celtic, and Persian, though his classification contained
some inaccuracies and omissions. In one of the most famous quotations
in linguistics, Jones made the following prescient statement in
a lecture to the Asiatic Society of Bengal in 1786, conjecturing
the existence of an earlier ancestor language, which he called "a
common source" but did not name :
The
Sanscrit [sic] 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 bearing 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.
—
Sir William Jones, Third Anniversary Discourse delivered 2 February
1786, ELIOHS
Thomas Young first used the term Indo-European in 1813, deriving
from the geographical extremes of the language family: from Western
Europe to North India. A synonym is Indo-Germanic (Idg. or IdG.),
specifying the family's southeasternmost and northwesternmost branches.
This first appeared in French (indo-germanique) in 1810 in the work
of Conrad Malte-Brun; in most languages this term is now dated or
less common than Indo-European, although in German indogermanisch
remains the standard scientific term. A number of other synonymous
terms have also been used.
Franz
Bopp wrote in 1816 On the conjugational system of the Sanskrit language
compared with that of Greek, Latin, Persian and Germanic and between
1833 and 1852 he wrote Comparative Grammar. This marks the beginning
of Indo-European studies as an academic discipline. The classical
phase of Indo-European comparative linguistics leads from this work
to August Schleicher's 1861 Compendium and up to Karl Brugmann's
Grundriss, published in the 1880s. Brugmann's neogrammarian reevaluation
of the field and Ferdinand de Saussure's development of the laryngeal
theory may be considered the beginning of "modern" Indo-European
studies. The generation of Indo-Europeanists active in the last
third of the 20th century (such as Calvert Watkins, Jochem Schindler,
and Helmut Rix) developed a better understanding of morphology and
of ablaut in the wake of Kurylowicz's 1956 Apophony in Indo-European,
who in 1927 pointed out the existence of the Hittite consonant h.
Kurylowicz's discovery supported Ferdinand de Saussure's 1879 proposal
of the existence of coefficients sonantiques, elements de Saussure
reconstructed to account for vowel length alternations in Indo-European
languages. This led to the so-called laryngeal theory, a major step
forward in Indo-European linguistics and a confirmation of de Saussure's
theory.[citation needed]
Classification
:
The various subgroups of the Indo-European language family
include ten major branches, listed below in alphabetical order :
•
Albanian, attested
from the 13th century AD; Proto-Albanian evolved from an ancient
Paleo-Balkan language, traditionally thought to be Illyrian; however,
the evidence supporting this is insufficient.
• Anatolian,
extinct by Late Antiquity, spoken in Anatolia, attested in isolated
terms in Luwian/Hittite mentioned in Semitic Old Assyrian texts
from the 20th and 19th centuries BC, Hittite texts from about 1650
BC.
• Armenian,
attested from the early 5th century AD.
• Balto-Slavic,
believed by most Indo-Europeanists to form a phylogenetic unit,
while a minority ascribes similarities to prolonged language-contact.
•
Slavic (from
Proto-Slavic), attested from the 9th century AD (possibly earlier),
earliest texts in Old Church Slavonic. Slavic languages include
Bulgarian, Russian, Polish, Czech, Slovak, Silesian, Kashubian,
Macedonian, Serbo-Croatian (Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin, Serbian),
Sorbian, Slovenian, Ukrainian, Belarusian, and Rusyn.
•
Baltic, attested
from the 14th century AD; for languages first attested that recently,
they retain unusually many archaic features attributed to Proto-Indo-European
(PIE). Living examples are Lithuanian and Latvian.
•
Celtic (from
Proto-Celtic), attested since the 6th century BC; Lepontic inscriptions
date as early as the 6th century BC; Celtiberian from the 2nd century
BC; Primitive Irish Ogham inscriptions from the 4th or 5th century
AD, earliest inscriptions in Old Welsh from the 7th century AD.
Modern Celtic languages include Welsh, Cornish, Breton, Scots Gaelic,
Irish and Manx.
• Germanic
(from Proto-Germanic), earliest attestations in runic inscriptions
from around the 2nd century AD, earliest coherent texts in Gothic,
4th century AD. Old English manuscript tradition from about the
8th century AD. Includes English, Frisian, German, Dutch, Scots,
Danish, Swedish, Norwegian, Afrikaans, Yiddish, Low German, Icelandic
and Faroese.
• Hellenic
and Greek (from Proto-Greek, see also History of Greek); fragmentary
records in Mycenaean Greek from between 1450 and 1350 BC have been
found. Homeric texts date to the 8th century BC.
• Indo-Iranian,
attested circa 1400 BC, descended from Proto-Indo-Iranian (dated
to the late 3rd millennium BC).
• Indo-Aryan
(including Dardic), attested from around 1400 BC in Hittite texts
from Anatolia, showing traces of Indo-Aryan words. Epigraphically
from the 3rd century BC in the form of Prakrit (Edicts of Ashok).
The Rigved is assumed to preserve intact records via oral tradition
dating from about the mid-second millennium BC in the form of
Vedic Sanskrit. Includes a wide range of modern languages from
Northern India, Southern Pakistan and Bangladesh including Hindustani,
Bengali, Odia, Assamese, Punjabi, Kashmiri, Gujarati, Marathi,
Sindhi and Nepali as well as Sinhala of Sri Lanka and Dhivehi
of the Maldives and Minicoy.
• Iranian
or Iranic, attested from roughly 1000 BC in the form of Avestan.
Epigraphically from 520 BC in the form of Old Persian (Behistun
inscription). Includes Persian, Ossetian, Pashto and Kurdish.
• Nuristani
(includes Kamkata-vari, Vasi-vari, Askunu, Waigali, Tregami, and
Zemiaki).
•
Italic (from
Proto-Italic), attested from the 7th century BC. Includes the ancient
Osco-Umbrian languages, Faliscan, as well as Latin and its descendants,
the Romance languages, such as Italian, Venetian, Galician, Sardinian,
Neapolitan, Sicilian, Spanish, French, Romansh, Occitan, Portuguese,
Romanian, and Catalan/Valencian.
• Tocharian,
with proposed links to the Afanasevo culture of Southern Siberia.
Extant in two dialects (Turfanian and Kuchean, or Tocharian A and
B), attested from roughly the 6th to the 9th century AD. Marginalized
by the Old Turkic Uyghur Khaganate and probably extinct by the 10th
century.
In addition to the classical ten branches listed above,
several extinct and little-known languages and language-groups have
existed or are proposed to have existed :
•
Ancient Belgian:
hypothetical language associated with the proposed Nordwestblock
cultural area. Speculated to be connected to Italic or Venetic,
and to have certain phonological features in common with Lusitanian.
•
Cimmerian: possibly Iranic, Thracian, or Celtic
• Dacian:
possibly very close to Thracian
• Elymian:
Poorly-attested language spoken by the Elymians, one of the three
indigenous (i.e. pre-Greek and pre-Punic) tribes of Sicily. Indo-European
affiliation uncertain, but relationships to Italic or Anatolian
have been proposed.
• Illyrian:
possibly related to Albanian, Messapian, or both
• Liburnian:
doubtful affiliation, features shared with Venetic, Illyrian, and
Indo-Hittite, significant transition of the Pre-Indo-European elements
• Ligurian:
possibly close to or part of Celtic.
• Lusitanian:
possibly related to (or part of) Celtic, Ligurian, or Italic
• Ancient
Macedonian: proposed relationship to Greek.
• Messapian:
not conclusively deciphered
•
Paionian: extinct language once spoken north of Macedon
• Phrygian:
language of the ancient Phrygians
•
Sicel: an ancient language spoken by the Sicels (Greek Sikeloi,
Latin Siculi), one of the three indigenous (i.e. pre-Greek and pre-Punic)
tribes of Sicily. Proposed relationship to Latin or proto-Illyrian
(Pre-Indo-European) at an earlier stage.
• Sorothaptic:
proposed, pre-Celtic, Iberian language
•
Thracian: possibly including Dacian
•
Venetic: shares several similarities with Latin and the Italic languages,
but also has some affinities with other IE languages, especially
Germanic and Celtic.
Indo-European
family tree in order of first attestation
To
view large image Click
here
Indo-European
language family tree based on "Ancestry-constrained phylogenetic
analysis of Indo-European languages" by Chang et al
Membership of languages in the Indo-European language family is
determined by genealogical relationships, meaning that all members
are presumed descendants of a common ancestor, Proto-Indo-European.
Membership in the various branches, groups and subgroups of Indo-European
is also genealogical, but here the defining factors are shared innovations
among various languages, suggesting a common ancestor that split
off from other Indo-European groups. For example, what makes the
Germanic languages a branch of Indo-European is that much of their
structure and phonology can be stated in rules that apply to all
of them. Many of their common features are presumed innovations
that took place in Proto-Germanic, the source of all the Germanic
languages.
In
the 21st century, several attempts have been made to model the phylogeny
of Indo-European languages using Bayesian methodologies similar
to those applied to problems in biological phylogeny. Although there
are differences in absolute timing between the various analyses,
there is much commonality between them, including the result that
the first known language groups to diverge were the Anatolian and
Tocharian language families, in that order.
Tree versus wave model :
The "tree model" is considered an appropriate representation
of the genealogical history of a language family if communities
do not remain in contact after their languages have started to diverge.
In this case, subgroups defined by shared innovations form a nested
pattern. The tree model is not appropriate in cases where languages
remain in contact as they diversify; in such cases subgroups may
overlap, and the "wave model" is a more accurate representation.
Most approaches to Indo-European subgrouping to date have assumed
that the tree model is by-and-large valid for Indo-European; however,
there is also a long tradition of wave-model approaches.
In
addition to genealogical changes, many of the early changes in Indo-European
languages can be attributed to language contact. It has been asserted,
for example, that many of the more striking features shared by Italic
languages (Latin, Oscan, Umbrian, etc.) might well be areal features.
More certainly, very similar-looking alterations in the systems
of long vowels in the West Germanic languages greatly postdate any
possible notion of a proto-language innovation (and cannot readily
be regarded as "areal", either, because English and continental
West Germanic were not a linguistic area). In a similar vein, there
are many similar innovations in Germanic and Balto-Slavic that are
far more likely areal features than traceable to a common proto-language,
such as the uniform development of a high vowel (*u in the case
of Germanic, *i/u in the case of Baltic and Slavic) before the PIE
syllabic resonants *r, *l, *m, *n, unique to these two groups among
IE languages, which is in agreement with the wave model. The Balkan
sprachbund even features areal convergence among members of very
different branches.
An
extension to the Ringe-Warnow model of language evolution, suggests
that early IE had featured limited contact between distinct lineages,
with only the Germanic subfamily exhibiting a less treelike behaviour
as it acquired some characteristics from neighbours early in its
evolution. The internal diversification of especially West Germanic
is cited to have been radically non-treelike.
Proposed
subgroupings :
Hypothetical
Indo-European phylogenetic clades :
Balkan
Paleo-Balkan • Daco-Thracian
• Graeco-Armenian
• Graeco-Aryan
• Graeco-Phrygian
• Hellenic
• Thraco-Illyrian
Other
Italo-Celtic • Indo-Hittite
• Indo-Uralic
Specialists have postulated the existence of higher-order subgroups
such as Italo-Celtic, Graeco-Armenian, Graeco-Aryan or Graeco-Armeno-Aryan,
and Balto-Slavo-Germanic. However, unlike the ten traditional branches,
these are all controversial to a greater or lesser degree.
The
Italo-Celtic subgroup was at one point uncontroversial, considered
by Antoine Meillet to be even better established than Balto-Slavic.
The main lines of evidence included the genitive suffix -i; the
superlative suffix -mmo; the change of /p/ to /kw/ before another
/kw/ in the same word (as in penkwe > *kwenkwe > Latin quinque,
Old Irish cóic); and the subjunctive morpheme -a-. This evidence
was prominently challenged by Calvert Watkins; while Michael Weiss
has argued for the subgroup.
Evidence
for a relationship between Greek and Armenian includes the regular
change of the second laryngeal to a at the beginnings of words,
as well as terms for "woman" and "sheep". Greek
and Indo-Iranian share innovations mainly in verbal morphology and
patterns of nominal derivation. Relations have also been proposed
between Phrygian and Greek, and between Thracian and Armenian. Some
fundamental shared features, like the aorist (a verb form denoting
action without reference to duration or completion) having the perfect
active particle -s fixed to the stem, link this group closer to
Anatolian languages and Tocharian. Shared features with Balto-Slavic
languages, on the other hand (especially present and preterit formations),
might be due to later contacts.
The
Indo-Hittite hypothesis proposes that the Indo-European language
family consists of two main branches: one represented by the Anatolian
languages and another branch encompassing all other Indo-European
languages. Features that separate Anatolian from all other branches
of Indo-European (such as the gender or the verb system) have been
interpreted alternately as archaic debris or as innovations due
to prolonged isolation. Points proffered in favour of the Indo-Hittite
hypothesis are the (non-universal) Indo-European agricultural terminology
in Anatolia and the preservation of laryngeals. However, in general
this hypothesis is considered to attribute too much weight to the
Anatolian evidence. According to another view, the Anatolian subgroup
left the Indo-European parent language comparatively late, approximately
at the same time as Indo-Iranian and later than the Greek or Armenian
divisions. A third view, especially prevalent in the so-called French
school of Indo-European studies, holds that extant similarities
in non-satem languages in general—including Anatolian—might
be due to their peripheral location in the Indo-European language-area
and to early separation, rather than indicating a special ancestral
relationship.Hans J. Holm, based on lexical calculations, arrives
at a picture roughly replicating the general scholarly opinion and
refuting the Indo-Hittite hypothesis.
Satem
and centum languages :
Some significant isoglosses in Indo-European daughter languages
at around 500 BC
|
|
Blue:
centum languages |
|
|
|
|
|
Red:
satem languages |
|
|
|
|
|
Orange:
languages with augment |
|
|
|
|
|
Green:
languages with PIE *-tt- > -ss- |
|
|
|
|
|
Tan:
languages with PIE *-tt- > -st- |
|
|
|
|
|
Pink:
languages with instrumental, dative and ablative plural endings |
|
|
(and
some others) in *-m- rather than *-bh- |
The division of the Indo-European languages into satem and centum
groups was put forward by Peter von Bradke in 1890, although Karl
Brugmann did propose a similar type of division in 1886. In the
satem languages, which include the Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian
branches, as well as (in most respects) Albanian and Armenian, the
reconstructed Proto-Indo-European palatovelars remained distinct
and were fricativized, while the labiovelars merged with the 'plain
velars'. In the centum languages, the palatovelars merged with the
plain velars, while the labiovelars remained distinct. The results
of these alternative developments are exemplified by the words for
"hundred" in Avestan (satem) and Latin (centum)—the
initial palatovelar developed into a fricative [s] in the former,
but became an ordinary velar [k] in the latter.
Rather
than being a genealogical separation, the centum–satem division
is commonly seen as resulting from innovative changes that spread
across PIE dialect-branches over a particular geographical area;
the centum–satem isogloss intersects a number of other isoglosses
that mark distinctions between features in the early IE branches.
It may be that the centum branches in fact reflect the original
state of affairs in PIE, and only the satem branches shared a set
of innovations, which affected all but the peripheral areas of the
PIE dialect continuum. Kortlandt proposes that the ancestors of
Balts and Slavs took part in satemization before being drawn later
into the western Indo-European sphere.
Suggested
macrofamilies :
Some linguists propose that Indo-European languages form part of
one of several hypothetical macrofamilies. However, these theories
remain highly controversial and are not accepted by most linguists
in the field. Some of the smaller proposed macrofamilies include
:
•
Indo-Uralic,
joining Indo-European with Uralic
• Pontic,
postulated by John Colarusso, which joins Indo-European with Northwest
Caucasian
Other, greater proposed families including Indo-European
languages, include :
•
Eurasiatic, a
theory championed by Joseph Greenberg, comprising the Uralic, Altaic
and various 'Paleosiberian' families (Ainu, Yukaghir, Nivkh, Chukotko-Kamchatkan,
Eskimo-Aleut) and possibly others
• Nostratic,
comprising all or some of the Eurasiatic languages as well as the
Kartvelian, Dravidian (or wider, Elamo-Dravidian) and Afroasiatic
language families
Objections to such groupings are not based on any theoretical claim
about the likely historical existence or non-existence of such macrofamilies;
it is entirely reasonable to suppose that they might have existed.
The serious difficulty lies in identifying the details of actual
relationships between language families, because it is very hard
to find concrete evidence that transcends chance resemblance, or
is not equally likely explained as being due to borrowing (including
Wanderwörter, which can travel very long distances). Because
the signal-to-noise ratio in historical linguistics declines over
time, at great enough time-depths it becomes open to reasonable
doubt that one can even distinguish between signal and noise.
Evolution
:
Proto-Indo-European :
Scheme
of Indo-European migrations from ca. 4000 to 1000 BC according to
the Kurgan hypothesis
The
proposed Proto-Indo-European language (PIE) is the reconstructed
common ancestor of the Indo-European languages, spoken by the Proto-Indo-Europeans.
From the 1960s, knowledge of Anatolian became certain enough to
establish its relationship to PIE. Using the method of internal
reconstruction, an earlier stage, called Pre-Proto-Indo-European,
has been proposed.
PIE
was an inflected language, in which the grammatical relationships
between words were signaled through inflectional morphemes (usually
endings). The roots of PIE are basic morphemes carrying a lexical
meaning. By addition of suffixes, they form stems, and by addition
of endings, these form grammatically inflected words (nouns or verbs).
The reconstructed Indo-European verb system is complex and, like
the noun, exhibits a system of ablaut.
Diversification
:
Possible expansion of Indo-European languages according
to the Kurgan hypothesis
IE
languages 3500 BC
IE languages 2500 BC
IE languages 1500 BC
IE languages 500 AD
The
diversification of the parent language into the attested branches
of daughter languages is historically unattested. The timeline of
the evolution of the various daughter languages, on the other hand,
is mostly undisputed, quite regardless of the question of Indo-European
origins.
Using
a mathematical analysis borrowed from evolutionary biology, Don
Ringe and Tandy Warnow propose the following evolutionary tree of
Indo-European branches :
•
Pre-Anatolian
(before 3500 BC)
• Pre-Tocharian
• Pre-Italic
and Pre-Celtic (before 2500 BC)
• Pre-Armenian
and Pre-Greek (after 2500 BC)
• Proto-Indo-Iranian
(2000 BC)
• Pre-Germanic
and Pre-Balto-Slavic; proto-Germanic c. 500 BC
David
Anthony proposes the following sequence :
•
Pre-Anatolian
(4200 BC)
• Pre-Tocharian
(3700 BC)
• Pre-Germanic
(3300 BC)
• Pre-Italic
and Pre-Celtic (3000 BC)
• Pre-Armenian
(2800 BC)
• Pre-Balto-Slavic
(2800 BC)
• Pre-Greek
(2500 BC)
• Proto-Indo-Iranian
(2200 BC); split between Iranian and Old Indic 1800 BC
From 1500 BC the following sequence may be given : [citation
needed]
•
1500–1000
BC : The Nordic Bronze Age develops pre-Proto-Germanic, and the
(pre)-Proto-Celtic Urnfield and Hallstatt cultures emerge in Central
Europe, introducing the Iron Age. Migration of the Proto-Italic
speakers into the Italian peninsula (Bagnolo stele). Redaction of
the Rigved and rise of the Vedic civilization in the Punjab. The
Mycenaean civilization gives way to the Greek Dark Ages. Hittite
goes extinct.
• 1000–500
BC : The Celtic languages spread over Central and Western Europe.
Baltic languages are spoken in a huge area from present-day Poland
to the Ural Mountains. Proto Germanic. Homer and the beginning of
Classical Antiquity. The Vedic Civilization gives way to the Mahajanapadas.
Siddhartha Gautama preaches Buddhism. Zoroaster composes the Gathas,
rise of the Achaemenid Empire, replacing the Elamites and Babylonia.
Separation of Proto-Italic into Osco-Umbrian and Latin-Faliscan.
Genesis of the Greek and Old Italic alphabets. A variety of Paleo-Balkan
languages are spoken in Southern Europe.
• 500
BC – 1 BC/AD : Classical Antiquity: spread of Greek and Latin
throughout the Mediterranean and, during the Hellenistic period
(Indo-Greeks), to Central Asia and the Hindukush. Kushan Empire,
Mauryan Empire. Proto-Germanic.
• 1
BC – AD 500 : Late Antiquity, Gupta period; attestation of
Armenian. Proto-Slavic. The Roman Empire and then the Migration
period marginalize the Celtic languages to the British Isles. Sogdian,
an Eastern Iranian language, becomes the lingua franca of the Silk
Road in Central Asia leading to China, due to the proliferation
of Sogdian merchants there. The last of the Anatolian languages
are extinct.
• 500–1000
: Early Middle Ages. The Viking Age forms an Old Norse koine spanning
Scandinavia, the British Isles and Iceland. The Islamic conquest
and the Turkic expansion results in the Arabization and Turkification
of significant areas where Indo-European languages were spoken.
Tocharian is extinct in the course of the Turkic expansion while
Northeastern Iranian (Scytho-Sarmatian) is reduced to small refugia.
Slavic languages spread over wide areas in central, eastern and
southeastern Europe, largely replacing Romance in the Balkans (with
the exception of Romanian) and whatever was left of the paleo-Balkan
languages with the exception of Albanian.
•
1000–1500 : Late Middle Ages: Attestation of Albanian and
Baltic.
• 1500–2000
: Early Modern period to present: Colonialism results in the spread
of Indo-European languages to every continent, most notably Romance
(North, Central and South America, North and Sub-Saharan Africa,
West Asia), West Germanic (English in North America, Sub-Saharan
Africa, East Asia and Australia; to a lesser extent Dutch and German),
and Russian to Central Asia and North Asia.
Important languages for reconstruction :
In reconstructing the history of the Indo-European languages and
the form of the Proto-Indo-European language, some languages have
been of particular importance. These generally include the ancient
Indo-European languages that are both well-attested and documented
at an early date, although some languages from later periods are
important if they are particularly linguistically conservative (most
notably, Lithuanian). Early poetry is of special significance because
of the rigid poetic meter normally employed, which makes it possible
to reconstruct a number of features (e.g. vowel length) that were
either unwritten or corrupted in the process of transmission down
to the earliest extant written manuscripts.
Most
noticeable of all :
•
Vedic Sanskrit
(c. 1500–500 BC). This language is unique in that its source
documents were all composed orally, and were passed down through
oral tradition (shakha schools) for c. 2,000 years before ever being
written down. The oldest documents are all in poetic form; oldest
and most important of all is the Rigved (c. 1500 BC).
• Ancient
Greek (c. 750–400 BC). Mycenaean Greek (c. 1450 BC) is the
oldest recorded form, but its value is lessened by the limited material,
restricted subject matter, and highly ambiguous writing system.
More important is Ancient Greek, documented extensively beginning
with the two Homeric poems (the Iliad and the Odyssey, c. 750 BC).
• Hittite
(c. 1700–1200 BC). This is the earliest-recorded of all Indo-European
languages, and highly divergent from the others due to the early
separation of the Anatolian languages from the remainder. It possesses
some highly archaic features found only fragmentarily, if at all,
in other languages. At the same time, however, it appears to have
undergone many early phonological and grammatical changes which,
combined with the ambiguities of its writing system, hinder its
usefulness somewhat.
Other primary sources :
•
Latin, attested
in a huge amount of poetic and prose material in the Classical period
(c. 200 BC – 100 AD) and limited older material from as early
as c. 600 BC.
• Gothic
(the most archaic well-documented Germanic language, c. 350 AD),
along with the combined witness of the other old Germanic languages:
most importantly, Old English (c. 800–1000 AD), Old High German
(c. 750–1000 AD) and Old Norse (c. 1100–1300 AD, with
limited earlier sources dating all the way back to c. 200 AD).
• Old
Avestan (c. 1700–1200 BC) and Younger Avestan (c. 900 BC).
Documentation is sparse, but nonetheless quite important due to
its highly archaic nature.
• Modern
Lithuanian, with limited records in Old Lithuanian (c. 1500–1700
AD).
• Old
Church Slavonic (c. 900–1000 AD).
Other secondary sources, of lesser value due to poor attestation
:
•
Luwian, Lycian,
Lydian and other Anatolian languages (c. 1400–400 BC).
• Oscan,
Umbrian and other Old Italic languages (c. 600–200 BC).
• Old
Persian (c. 500 BC).
• Old
Prussian (c. 1350–1600 AD); even more archaic than Lithuanian.
Other secondary sources, of lesser value due to extensive
phonological changes and relatively limited attestation :
•
Old Irish (c.
700–850 AD).
• Tocharian
(c. 500–800 AD), underwent large phonetic shifts and mergers
in the proto-language, and has an almost entirely reworked declension
system.
• Classical
Armenian (c. 400–1000 AD).
• Albanian
(c. 1450–current time).
Sound changes :
As the Proto-Indo-European (PIE) language broke up, its sound system
diverged as well, changing according to various sound laws evidenced
in the daughter languages.
PIE
is normally reconstructed with a complex system of 15 stop consonants,
including an unusual three-way phonation (voicing) distinction between
voiceless, voiced and "voiced aspirated" (i.e. breathy
voiced) stops, and a three-way distinction among velar consonants
(k-type sounds) between "palatal" k g gh, "plain
velar" k g gh and labiovelar kw gw gwh. (The correctness of
the terms palatal and plain velar is disputed; see Proto-Indo-European
phonology.) All daughter languages have reduced the number of distinctions
among these sounds, often in divergent ways.
As
an example, in English, one of the Germanic languages, the following
are some of the major changes that happened :
1.
As in other centum languages, the "plain velar" and "palatal"
stops merged, reducing the number of stops from 15 to 12.
2. As in the other Germanic languages, the Germanic sound shift
changed the realization of all stop consonants, with each consonant
shifting to a different one:
bh → b → p → f
dh → d → t → 0
gh → g → k → x (Later initial x → h)
gwh → gw → kw → xw (Later initial xw → hw)
Each original consonant shifted one position to the right. For example,
original d? became d, while original d became t and original t became
0 (written th in English). This is the original source of the English
sounds written f, th, h and wh. Examples, comparing English with
Latin, where the sounds largely remain unshifted :
For
PIE p : piscis vs. fish; pes, pedis vs. foot; pluvium "rain"
vs. flow; pater vs. father
For PIE t : tres vs. three; mater vs. mother
For PIE d : decem vs. ten; pedis vs. foot; quid vs. what
For PIE k : centum vs. hund(red); capere "to take" vs.
have
For PIE kw : quid vs. what; quando vs. when
3. Various further changes affected consonants in the middle or
end of a word.
• The
voiced stops resulting from the sound shift were softened to voiced
fricatives (or perhaps the sound shift directly generated fricatives
in these positions).
• Verner's
law also turned some of the voiceless fricatives resulting from
the sound shift into voiced fricatives or stops. This is why the
t in Latin centum ends up as d in hund(red) rather than the expected
th.
• Most
remaining h sounds disappeared, while remaining f and th became
voiced. For example, Latin decem ends up as ten with no h in the
middle (but note taíhun "ten" in Gothic, an archaic
Germanic language). Similarly, the words seven and have have a voiced
v (compare Latin septem, capere), while father and mother have a
voiced th, although not spelled differently (compare Latin pater,
mater).
None
of the daughter-language families (except possibly Anatolian, particularly
Luvian) reflect the plain velar stops differently from the other
two series, and there is even a certain amount of dispute whether
this series existed at all in PIE. The major distinction between
centum and satem languages corresponds to the outcome of the PIE
plain velars :
•
The "central"
satem languages (Indo-Iranian, Balto-Slavic, Albanian, and Armenian)
reflect both "plain velar" and labiovelar stops as plain
velars, often with secondary palatalization before a front vowel
(e i e i). The "palatal" stops are palatalized and often
appear as sibilants (usually but not always distinct from the secondarily
palatalized stops).
• The
"peripheral" centum languages (Germanic, Italic, Celtic,
Greek, Anatolian and Tocharian) reflect both "palatal"
and "plain velar" stops as plain velars, while the labiovelars
continue unchanged, often with later reduction into plain labial
or velar consonants.
The three-way PIE distinction between voiceless, voiced and voiced
aspirated stops is considered extremely unusual from the perspective
of linguistic typology—particularly in the existence of voiced
aspirated stops without a corresponding series of voiceless aspirated
stops. None of the various daughter-language families continue it
unchanged, with numerous "solutions" to the apparently
unstable PIE situation :
•
The Indo-Aryan
languages preserve the three series unchanged but have evolved a
fourth series of voiceless aspirated consonants.
• The
Iranian languages probably passed through the same stage, subsequently
changing the aspirated stops into fricatives.
• Greek
converted the voiced aspirates into voiceless aspirates.
• Italic
probably passed through the same stage, but reflects the voiced
aspirates as voiceless fricatives, especially f (or sometimes plain
voiced stops in Latin).
• Celtic,
Balto-Slavic, Anatolian, and Albanian merge the voiced aspirated
into plain voiced stops.
• Germanic
and Armenian change all three series in a chain shift (e.g. with
bh b p becoming b p f (known as Grimm's law in Germanic).
Among the other notable changes affecting consonants are :
•
The Ruki sound
law (s becomes /f/ before r, u, k, i) in the satem languages.
• Loss
of prevocalic p in Proto-Celtic.
• Development
of prevocalic s to h in Proto-Greek, with later loss of h between
vowels.
• Verner's
law in Proto-Germanic.
Grassmann's law (dissimilation of aspirates) independently in Proto-Greek
and Proto-Indo-Iranian.
The following table shows the basic outcomes of PIE consonants in
some of the most important daughter languages for the purposes of
reconstruction. For a fuller table, see Indo-European sound laws.
Comparison
of conjugations :
While
similarities are still visible between the modern descendants and
relatives of these ancient languages, the differences have increased
over time. Some IE languages have moved from synthetic verb systems
to largely periphrastic systems. In addition, the pronouns of periphrastic
forms are in brackets when they appear. Some of these verbs have
undergone a change in meaning as well.
•
In Modern Irish
beir usually only carries the meaning to bear in the sense of bearing
a child; its common meanings are to catch, grab.
• The
Hindustani (Hindi and Urdu) verb bharna, the continuation of the
Sanskrit verb, can have a variety of meanings, but the most common
is "to fill". The forms given in the table, although etymologically
derived from the present indicative, now have the meaning of future
subjunctive. The loss of the present indicative in Hindustani is
roughly compensated by the habitual indicative which is formed periphrastically,
using the habitual participle (etymologically the Sanskrit present
participle bharant-) and an auxiliary: mè~ bharta hu~, tu
bharta hè, vah bharta hè, ham bharte hè~, tum
bharte ho, ve bharte hè~ (masculine forms).
• German
is not directly descended from Gothic, but the Gothic forms are
a close approximation of what the early West Germanic forms of c.
400 AD would have looked like. The cognate of Germanic beranan (English
bear) survives in German only in the compound gebären, meaning
"bear (a child)".
• The
Latin verb ferre is irregular, and not a good representative of
a normal thematic verb. In most Romance Languages such as French,
other verbs now mean "to carry" (e.g. Fr. porter <
Lat. portare) and ferre was borrowed and nativized only in compounds
such as souffrir "to suffer" (from Latin sub- and ferre)
and conférer "to confer" (from Latin "con-"
and "ferre").
• In
Modern Greek, phero (modern transliteration fero) "to bear"
is still used but only in specific contexts and is most common in
such compounds.
• The
form that is (very) common today is pherno (modern transliteration
ferno) meaning "to bring". Additionally, the perfective
form of pherno (used for the subjunctive voice and also for the
future tense) is also phero.
• In
Modern Russian brat' carries the meaning to take. br'em'a means
burden, as something heavy to bear, and derivative b'er'em'ennost'
means pregnancy.
Comparison of cognates :
Present distribution :
|
|
Countries
where Indo-European language family is majority native |
|
|
|
|
|
Countries
where Indo-European language family is official but not majority
native |
|
|
|
|
|
Countries where Indo-European language family is not official |
The
approximate present-day distribution of Indo-European languages
within the Americas by country
Romance :
|
|
Spanish |
|
|
|
|
|
Portuguese–Galician |
|
|
|
|
|
French |
|
|
|
|
|
Germanic
: |
|
|
|
|
|
English |
|
|
|
|
|
Dutch |
Today, Indo-European languages are spoken by 3.2 billion native
speakers across all inhabited continents, the largest number by
far for any recognised language family. Of the 20 languages with
the largest numbers of native speakers according to Ethnologue,
10 are Indo-European: Spanish, English, Hindustani, Portuguese,
Bengali, Russian, Punjabi, German, French, and Marathi, accounting
for over 1.7 billion native speakers. Additionally, hundreds of
millions of persons worldwide study Indo-European languages as secondary
or tertiary languages, including in cultures which have completely
different language families and historical backgrounds—there
are between 600 million and one billion L2 learners of English alone.
The
success of the language family, including the large number of speakers
and the vast portions of the Earth that they inhabit, is due to
several factors. The ancient Indo-European migrations and widespread
dissemination of Indo-European culture throughout Eurasia, including
that of the Proto-Indo-Europeans themselves, and that of their daughter
cultures including the Indo-Aryans, Iranian peoples, Celts, Greeks,
Romans, Germanic peoples, and Slavs, led to these peoples' branches
of the language family already taking a dominant foothold in virtually
all of Eurasia except for swathes of the Near East, North and East
Asia, replacing many (but not all) of the previously-spoken pre-Indo-European
languages of this extensive area. However Semitic languages remain
dominant in much of the Middle East and North Africa, and Caucasian
languages in much of the Caucasus region. Similarly in Europe and
the Urals the Uralic languages (such as Hungarian, Finnish, Estonian
etc) remain, as does Basque, a pre-Indo-European isolate.
Despite
being unaware of their common linguistic origin, diverse groups
of Indo-European speakers continued to culturally dominate and often
replace the indigenous languages of the western two-thirds of Eurasia.
By the beginning of the Common Era, Indo-European peoples controlled
almost the entirety of this area: the Celts western and central
Europe, the Romans southern Europe, the Germanic peoples northern
Europe, the Slavs eastern Europe, the Iranian peoples most of western
and central Asia and parts of eastern Europe, and the Indo-Aryan
peoples in the Indian subcontinent, with the Tocharians inhabiting
the Indo-European frontier in western China. By the medieval period,
only the Semitic, Dravidian, Caucasian, and Uralic languages, and
the language isolate Basque remained of the (relatively) indigenous
languages of Europe and the western half of Asia.
Despite
medieval invasions by Eurasian nomads, a group to which the Proto-Indo-Europeans
had once belonged, Indo-European expansion reached another peak
in the early modern period with the dramatic increase in the population
of the Indian subcontinent and European expansionism throughout
the globe during the Age of Discovery, as well as the continued
replacement and assimilation of surrounding non-Indo-European languages
and peoples due to increased state centralization and nationalism.
These trends compounded throughout the modern period due to the
general global population growth and the results of European colonization
of the Western Hemisphere and Oceania, leading to an explosion in
the number of Indo-European speakers as well as the territories
inhabited by them.
Due
to colonization and the modern dominance of Indo-European languages
in the fields of politics, global science, technology, education,
finance, and sports, even many modern countries whose populations
largely speak non-Indo-European languages have Indo-European languages
as official languages, and the majority of the global population
speaks at least one Indo-European language. The overwhelming majority
of languages used on the Internet are Indo-European, with English
continuing to lead the group; English in general has in many respects
become the lingua franca of global communication.
Source
:
https://en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/Indo-European_languages