Indo-European languages

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - View original article

Before the 16th century: South, Central, and Western Asia, and Europe; today: worldwide
Linguistic classification:One of the world's primary language families
ISO 639-2 / 5:ine
  Countries with a majority of speakers of IE languages
  Countries with an IE minority language with official status
Jump to: navigation, search
"Indo-European" redirects here. For other uses, see Indo-European (disambiguation).
Before the 16th century: South, Central, and Western Asia, and Europe; today: worldwide
Linguistic classification:One of the world's primary language families
ISO 639-2 / 5:ine
  Countries with a majority of speakers of IE languages
  Countries with an IE minority language with official status

The Indo-European languages are a family of several hundred related languages and dialects. There are about 445 Indo-European languages and dialects, according to the estimate by Ethnologue, with over two-thirds (313) of them belonging to the Indo-Iranian branch alone.[2] The Indo-European family includes most major current languages of South Asia, Europe, and parts of Western and Central Asia. It was also predominant in ancient Anatolia (present-day Turkey), and the ancient Tarim Basin (present-day Northwest China). With written attestations appearing since the Bronze Age in the form of the Anatolian languages and Mycenaean Greek, the Indo-European family is significant to the field of historical linguistics as possessing the second-longest recorded history, after the Afroasiatic family.

Indo-European languages are spoken by almost 3 billion native speakers,[3] the largest number by far for any recognised language family. Of the 20 languages with the largest numbers of native speakers according to Ethnologue, 11 are Indo-European: Spanish, English, Hindi, Portuguese, Bengali, Russian, Punjabi, German, French, Marathi, and Urdu, accounting for over 1.7 billion native speakers.[4] Several disputed proposals link Indo-European to other major language families.


Thomas Young coined the term "Indo-European" in 1813, from Indo- + European, after the geographical extremes of the language family: from Western Europe to Northeast India.[5]

History of Indo-European linguistics[edit]

Main article: Indo-European studies

In the 16th century, European visitors to the Indian Subcontinent began to suggest similarities between Indo-Aryan, Iranian, and European languages. In 1583, Thomas Stephens, an English Jesuit missionary in Goa, in a letter to his brother that was not published until the 20th century,[6] noted similarities between Indian languages, specifically Sanskrit, and Greek and Latin.

Another account to mention the ancient language Sanskrit came from Filippo Sassetti (born in Florence in 1540), a merchant who travelled to the Indian subcontinent. Writing in 1585, he noted some word similarities between Sanskrit and Italian (these included devaḥ/dio "God", sarpaḥ/serpe "serpent", sapta/sette "seven", aṣṭa/otto "eight", nava/nove "nine").[6] However, neither Stephens's nor Sassetti's observations led to further scholarly inquiry.[6]

In 1647, Dutch linguist and scholar Marcus Zuerius van Boxhorn noted the similarity among Indo-European languages, and supposed that they derived from a primitive common language 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.

The Ottoman Turkish traveller Evliya Çelebi, who visited Vienna in 1665–1666 as part of a diplomatic mission, noted a few similarities between words in German and 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 between them. Similarly, Mikhail Lomonosov compared different language groups of the world including Slavic, Baltic ("Kurlandic"), Iranian ("Medic"), Finnish, Chinese, "Hottentot", and others. He emphatically expressed the antiquity of the linguistic stages accessible to comparative method in the drafts for his Russian Grammar (published 1755).[7]

The hypothesis reappeared in 1786 when Sir William Jones first lectured on the striking similarities between three of the oldest languages known in his time: Latin, Greek, and Sanskrit, to which he tentatively added Gothic, Celtic, and Persian,[8] though his classification contained some inaccuracies and omissions.[9]

It was Thomas Young who in 1813[10] first used the term Indo-European, which became the standard scientific term through the work of Franz Bopp, whose systematic comparison of these and other old languages supported the hypothesis. A synonym for "Indo-European" is Indo-Germanic (Idg. or IdG.), which defines the family by indicating its southeasternmost and northwesternmost branches. In most languages this term is dated or less common, whereas in German it is still the standard scientific term.[11] Advocates of Indo-Germanic often claim that "Indo-European" is misleading because many historic and several living European languages (the unrelated Uralic languages, as well as several others, are also spoken in Europe) do not belong to this family. Advocates of Indo-European counter that Indo-Germanic is misleading because many of the European languages included are not in fact Germanic.

Franz Bopp's Comparative Grammar, which appeared between 1833 and 1852, is 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 junggrammatische 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, in the wake of Kuryłowicz's 1956 Apophonie, understanding of the ablaut.


Indo-European language family
The approximate present-day distribution of the Indo-European branches within their homelands of Europe and Asia:
  Non-Indo-European languages
Dotted/striped areas indicate where multilingualism is common.
The approximate present-day distribution of Indo-European languages within the Americas by country:

The various subgroups of the Indo-European language family include ten major branches, given in the chronological order of their emergence according to David Anthony:[12]

  1. Anatolian (Asia Minor), the earliest attested branch. Emerged around 4200 BC.[12] Isolated terms in Luwian/Hittite mentioned in Semitic Old Assyrian texts from the 20th and 19th centuries BC, Hittite texts from about 1650 BC;[13][14] extinct by Late Antiquity.
  2. Tocharian, emerged around 3700 BC,[12] extant in two dialects (Turfanian and Kuchean), attested from roughly the 6th to the 9th century AD. Marginalized by the Old Turkic Uyghur Khaganate and probably extinct by the 10th century.
  3. Germanic (from Proto-Germanic), emerged around 3300 BC,[12] earliest testimonies 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.
  4. Italic, including Latin and its descendants (the Romance languages), emerged around 3000 BC,[12] attested from the 7th century BC.
  5. Celtic, descended from Proto-Celtic, emerged around 3000 BC.[12] Gaulish inscriptions date as early as the 6th century BC; Celtiberian from the 2nd century BC; Primitive Irish Ogham inscriptions 5th century AD, earliest inscriptions in Old Welsh from the 8th century AD.
  6. Armenian, emerged around 2800 BC.[12] Alphabet writings known from the beginning of the 5th century AD.
  7. Balto-Slavic, emerged around 2800 BC,[12] believed by most Indo-Europeanists[15] to form a phylogenetic unit, while a minority ascribes similarities to prolonged language contact.
  8. Hellenic, emerged around 2500 BC.[12] Fragmentary records in Mycenaean Greek from between 1450 and 1350 BC have been found.[16] Homeric texts date to the 8th century BC. (See Proto-Greek, History of Greek.)
  9. Indo-Iranian, emerged around 2200 BC,[12] attested circa 1400 BC, descended from Proto-Indo-Iranian (dated to the late 3rd millennium BC).
  10. Albanian, attested from the 14th century AD; Proto-Albanian language likely evolved from Paleo-Balkan predecessors.[19][20]

In addition to the classical ten branches listed above, several extinct and little-known languages have existed:


Further information: Language families

Membership of these languages in the Indo-European language family is determined by genetic relationships, meaning that all members are presumed descendants of a common ancestor, Proto-Indo-European. Membership in the various branches, groups and subgroups or Indo-European is also genetic, 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 so 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.

Tree versus wave model[edit]

See also: Language change

To the evolutionary history of a language family, a genetic "tree model" is considered appropriate especially if communities do not remain in effective contact as their languages diverge. Exempted from this concept are shared innovations acquired by borrowing (or other means of convergence), that cannot be considered genetic. In this case the so-called "wave model" applies, featuring borrowings and no clear underlying genetic tree. 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 *ṛ,* ḷ, *ṃ, *ṇ, 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.

Using an extension to the Ringe-Warnow model of language evolution, early IE was confirmed to have featured limited contact between distinct lineages, whereas only the Germanic subfamily exhibited a less treelike behaviour as it acquired some characteristics from neighbours early in its evolution rather than from its direct ancestors. The internal diversification of especially West Germanic is cited to have been radically non-treelike.[23]

Proposed subgroupings[edit]

Specialists have postulated the existence of such subfamilies (subgroups) as Italo-Celtic, Graeco-Armenian, Graeco-Aryan, and Germanic with Balto-Slavic. The vogue for such subgroups waxes and wanes; Italo-Celtic for example was once a standard subgroup of Indo-European, but is now little honored, in part because much of the evidence it was based on was misinterpreted.[24]

Subgroupings of the Indo-European languages are commonly held to reflect genetic relationships and linguistic change. The generic differentiation of Proto-Indo-European into dialects and languages happened hand in hand with language contact and the spread of innovations over different territories.

Rather than being entirely genetic, the grouping of satem languages is commonly inferred as an innovative change that occurred just once, and subsequently spread over a large cohesive territory or PIE continuum that affected all but the peripheral areas.[25] Kortlandt proposes the ancestors of Balts and Slavs took part in satemization and were then drawn into the western Indo-European sphere.[26]

Shared features of Phrygian and Greek[27] and of Thracian and Armenian[28] group together with the Indo-Iranian family of Indo-European languages.[29] 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[30] and Tocharian. Shared features with Balto-Slavic languages, on the other hand (especially present and preterit formations), might be due to later contacts.[31]

The Indo-Hittite hypothesis proposes the Indo-European language family to consist 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[32] and the preservation of laryngeals.[33] 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 early separation, rather than indicating a special ancestral relationship.[34] Hans J. Holm, based on lexical calculations, arrives at a picture roughly replicating the general scholarly opinion and refuting the Indo-Hittite hypothesis.[35]

Satem and centum languages[edit]

The division of the Indo-European languages into a Satem vs. a Centum group was devised by Peter von Bradke in his 1890 work, "Concerning Method and Conclusions of Aryan (Indo-Germanic) Studies". In it, von Bradke described a division similar to that of Karl Brugmann's (1886), saying that the original "Aryans" knew two kinds of guttural sounds, the guttural or velar and palatal rows, each of which were aspirated and unaspirated. The velars were to be viewed as gutturals in a "narrow sense," and considered "pure K-sounds." Palatals were "often followed by labialization." This latter distinction led von Bradke to divide the palatal series into a group as a spirant and a pure K-sound, typified by the words satem and centum respectively.[36]

Suggested macrofamilies[edit]

Some linguists propose that Indo-European languages form part of one of several hypothetical macrofamilies. However, these theories remain highly controversial, not being accepted by most linguists in the field. Some of smaller proposed macrofamilies are:

Other, greater proposed families including Indo-European languages, are:

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 steadily over time, at great enough time-depths it becomes open to reasonable doubt that it can even be possible to distinguish between signal and noise.



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 hypothetical 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 desinences (usually endings), these form grammatically inflected words (nouns or verbs). The hypothetical Indo-European verb system is complex and, like the noun, exhibits a system of ablaut.


Indo-European languages ca. 3500 BC
Indo-European languages ca. 2500 BC
Indo-European languages ca. 1500 BC
Indo-European languages ca. 500 BC
Indo-European languages ca. 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 Wendy Tarnow propose the following evolutionary tree of Indo-European branches:[37]

David Anthony proposes the following sequence:[12]

From 1500 BC the following sequence may be given:

Important languages for reconstruction[edit]

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 important of all:

Other primary sources:

Other secondary sources, of lesser value due to poor attestation:

Other secondary sources, of lesser value due to extensive phonological changes and relatively limited attestation:

Sound changes[edit]

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" ḱ ǵ ǵh, "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:
    gkx (Later initial xh)
    gʷʰ (Later initial )

    Each original consonant shifted one position to the right. For example, original became d, while original d became t and original t became θ (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; pēs, pēdis vs. foot; pluvium "rain" vs. flow; pater vs. father
    For PIE t: trēs vs. three; māter vs. mother
    For PIE d: decem vs. ten; pēdis vs. foot; quid vs. what
    For PIE k: centum vs. hund(red); capere "to take" vs. have
    For PIE : quid vs. what; quandō 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, māter).

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 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:

Among the other notable changes affecting consonants are:

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.

Proto-Indo-European consonants and their reflexes in selected Indo-European daughter languages
PIESkr.O.C.S.Lith.GreekLatinOld IrishGothicEnglishExamples
PIEEng.Skr.Gk.Lat.Lith. etc.
*pp; phHpØ;
chT [x]
`-b- [β]
*pṓds ~ *ped-footpád-poús (podós)pēs (pedis)pãdas
*tt; thHtt;
-th- [θ]
þ [θ];
`-d- [ð];
*ḱś [ɕ]sš [ʃ]kc [k]c [k];
-ch- [x]
`-g- [ɣ]
*kk; cE [tʃ];
čE [tʃ];
cE' [ts]
"raw meat"
OE hrēaw
> raw
qu [kʷ];
c(O) [k]
ƕ [ʍ];
*kʷid, kʷodwhatkímquid, quodkàs
*bb; bhHbb [b];
*dd; dhHdd [d];
Goth. taíhun
j [dʒ];
hH [ɦ]
zž [ʒ]gg [ɡ];
kc / k;
*ǵénu, *ǵnéu-OE cnēo
> knee
jE [dʒ];
hH,E [ɦ]
žE [ʒ];
u [w > v];
gun− [ɡʷ]
b [b];
q [kʷ]qu*gʷīw-quick
b [b];
*bʰerōbear "carry"bhar-phérōferōOCS berǫ
d [d];
d [d];
d*dʰwer-, dʰur-doordhvā́raḥthurā́forēsdùrys
*ǵʰh [ɦ];
zž [ʒ]kh;
g [ɡ];
-g- [ɣ];
-g [x]
OHG gans
hE [ɦ];
žE [ʒ];
g /
-u- [w];
ngu [ɡʷ]
*gʷʰerm- ??warmgharmáḥthermósformusLatv. gar̂me
s [s];
ruki- [ʂ]xruki- [x]šruki- [ʃ]*h₂eusōs
*mmm [m];
m*mūsmousemū́ṣ-mũsmūsOCS myšĭ
*-m-m-˛ [˜]-n-m-n-Ø*ḱm̥tómhund(red)śatám(he)katóncentumOPrus simtan
-˛ [˜]
*lr (dial. l)l*leuk-lightrócateleukóslūxlaũkas
*i̯y [j]j [j]z [zd > dz > z] /
i [j];
*u̯v [ʋ]vv [ʋ]w > h / Øu [w > v]f;
PIESkr.O.C.S.Lith.GreekLatinOld IrishGothicEnglish

Comparison of conjugations[edit]

The following table presents a comparison of conjugations of the thematic present indicative of the verbal root *bʰer- of the English verb to bear and its reflexes in various early attested IE languages and their modern descendants or relatives, showing that all languages had in the early stage an inflectional verb system.

(*bʰer- 'to carry')
I (1st sg.)*bʰéroh₂
You (2nd sg.)*bʰéresi
He/She/It (3rd sg.)*bʰéreti
We (1st dual)*bʰérowos
You (2nd dual)*bʰéreth₁es
They (3rd dual)*bʰéretes
We (1st pl.)*bʰéromos
You (2nd pl.)*bʰérete
They (3rd pl.)*bʰéronti
Major subgroupHellenicIndo-IranianItalicCelticArmenianGermanicBalto-SlavicAlbanian
Ancient representativeAncient GreekVedic SanskritAvestanLatinOld IrishClassical Arm.GothicOld PrussianOld Church Sl.Old Albanian
I (1st sg.)phérōbhárāmibarāferōbiru; berimberembaíra /bɛra/berǫ
You (2nd sg.)phéreisbhárasibarahifersbiri; berirberesbaírisbereši
He/She/It (3rd sg.)phéreibháratibaraitifertberidberēbaíriþberetъ
We (1st dual)bhárāvasbarāvahibaírosberevě
You (2nd dual)phéretonbhárathasbaíratsbereta
They (3rd dual)phéretonbháratasbaratōberete
We (1st pl.)phéromenbhárāmasbarāmahiferimusbermaiberemk`baíramberemъ
You (2nd pl.)phéretebhárathabaraϑafertisbeirtheberēk`baíriþberete
They (3rd pl.)phérousibhárantibarəṇtiferuntberaitberenbaírandberǫtъ
Modern representativeModern GreekHindustaniPersianFrenchIrishArmenian (Eastern; Western)GermanLithuanianCzechAlbanian
I (1st sg.)férno(maiṃ) bharūṃ(mi)baram(je) {con}fèrebeirimberum em; g'perem(ich) {ge}bäreberiuberu(unë) mbart
You (2nd sg.)férnis(tū) bhare(mi)bari(tu) {con}fèresbeirirberum es; g'peres(du) {ge}bierstberibereš(ti) mbart
He/She/It (3rd sg.)férni(vah) bhare(mi)barad(il) {con}fèrebeireann; %beiridhberum ē; g'perē(er)(sie)(es) {ge}biertberiabere(ai/ajo) mbart
We (1st dual)beriava
You (2nd dual)
They (3rd dual)beria
We (1st pl.)férnume(ham) bhareṃ(mi)barim(nous) {con}féronsbeirimid; beireamberum enk`; g'perenk`(wir) {ge}bärenberiameberem(e)(ne) mbartim
You (2nd pl.)férnete(tum) bharo(mi)barid(vous) {con}férezbeireann sibh; %beirthaoiberum ek`; g'perek`(ihr) {ge}bärtberiateberete(ju) mbartni
They (3rd pl.)férnun(ve) bhareṃ(mi)barand(ils) {con}fèrentbeiridberum en; g'peren(sie) {ge}bärenberiaberou(ata/ato) mbartin

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. The pronouns of periphrastic forms are in brackets when they appear. Some of these verbs have undergone a change in meaning as well.

Comparison of cognates[edit]

See also[edit]


  1. ^ Nordhoff, Sebastian; Hammarström, Harald; Forkel, Robert; Haspelmath, Martin, eds. (2013). "Indo-European". Glottolog 2.2. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. 
  2. ^ "Ethnologue report for Indo-European". 
  3. ^ "Ethnologue list of language families". Retrieved 2010-08-07. 
  4. ^ "Ethnologue list of languages by number of speakers". Retrieved 2010-08-07. 
  5. ^ Robinson, Andrew (2007). The Last Man Who Knew Everything: Thomas Young, the Anonymous Genius who Proved Newton Wrong and Deciphered the Rosetta Stone, among Other Surprising Feats. Penguin. ISBN 0-13-134304-1. 
  6. ^ a b c Auroux, Sylvain (2000). History of the Language Sciences. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter. p. 1156. ISBN 3-11-016735-2. 
  7. ^ M. V. Lomonosov. In: Complete Edition, Moscow, 1952, vol. 7, pp. 652–659: Представимъ долготу времени, которою сіи языки раздѣлились. ... Польской и россійской языкъ коль давно раздѣлились! Подумай же, когда курляндской! Подумай же, когда латинской, греч., нѣм., росс. О глубокая древность! [Imagine the depth of time when these languages separated! ... Polish and Russian separated so long ago! Now think how long ago [this happened to] Kurlandic! Think when [this happened to] Latin, Greek, German, and Russian! Oh, great antiquity!]
  8. ^ "cited on page 14-15." (PDF). Retrieved 2010-08-07. 
  9. ^ Roger Blench Archaeology and Language: methods and issues at the Wayback Machine (archived May 17, 2006). In: A Companion To Archaeology. J. Bintliff ed. 52-74. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 2004. (He erroneously included Egyptian, Japanese, and Chinese in the Indo-European languages, while omitting Hindi.)[dead link]
  10. ^ In London Quarterly Review X/2 1813.; cf. Szemerényi 1999:12, footnote 6
  11. ^ In German the scientific term is indogermanisch (Indo-Germanic) indicating the east-west extension. That term first appeared in French as indo-germanique, in 1810, in the writing of Conrad Malte-Brun, a French geographer of Danish descent. In other languages—Dutch, for instance—the general population uses the term Indo-Germaans.
  12. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k Anthony 2007, p. 100.
  13. ^
  14. ^
  15. ^ such as Schleicher 1861, Szemerényi 1957, Collinge 1985, and Beekes 1995
  16. ^ "Tablet Discovery Pushes Earliest European Writing Back 150 Years". 
  17. ^ "Indian History". ISBN 9788184245684. 
  18. ^
  19. ^ Of the Albanian Language. William Martin Leake, London, 1814.
  20. ^ "The Thracian language". The Linguist List. Retrieved 2008-01-27. An ancient language of Southern Balkans, belonging to the Satem group of Indo-European. This language is the most likely ancestor of modern Albanian (which is also a Satem language), though the evidence is scanty. 1st Millennium BC – 500 AD. 
  21. ^ Kruta, Venceslas (1991). The Celts. Thames and Hudson. p. 54. 
  22. ^ Fine, John (1985). The ancient Greeks: a critical history. Harvard University Press. p. 72. ISBN 0674033140. "Most scholars now believe that the Sicans and Sicels, as well as the inhabitants of southern Italy, were basically of Illyrian stock superimposed on an aboriginal "Mediterranean" population."
  23. ^ Nakhleh, Luay; Ringe, Don & Warnow, Tandy (2005). "Perfect Phylogenetic Networks: A New Methodology for Reconstructing the Evolutionary History of Natural Languages". Language: Journal of the Linguistic Society of America 81 (2): 382–420. doi:10.1353/lan.2005.0078. 
  24. ^ Mallory J.P., D. Q. Adams (Hrsg.): Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture, Fitzroy Dearborn, London, 1997
  25. ^ Britannica 15th edition, vol.22, 1981, p.588, 594
  26. ^ "Frederik Kortlandt-The spread of the Indo-Europeans, 1989" (PDF). Retrieved 2010-08-07. 
  27. ^ Lubotsky - The Old Phrygian Areyastis-inscription, Kadmos 27, 9-26, 1988
  28. ^ Kortlandt - The Thraco-Armenian consonant shift, Linguistique Balkanique 31, 71-74, 1988
  29. ^ Renfrew, Colin (1987). Archaeology & Language. The Puzzle of the Indo-European Origins. London: Jonathan Cape. ISBN 0-224-02495-7. 
  30. ^ Encyclopædia Britannica, vol.22, Helen Hemingway Benton Publisher, Chicago, (15th ed.) 1981, p.593
  31. ^ George S. Lane, Douglas Q. Adams, Britannica 15th edition 22:667, "The Tocharian problem"
  32. ^ The supposed autochthony of Hittites, the Indo-Hittite hypothesis and migration of agricultural "Indo-European" societies became intrinsically linked together by C. Renfrew. (Renfrew, C 2001a The Anatolian origins of Proto-Indo-European and the autochthony of the Hittites. In R. Drews ed., Greater Anatolia and the Indo-Hittite language. family: 36-63. Washington, DC: Institute for the Study of Man).
  33. ^ Britannica 15th edition, 22 p. 586 "Indo-European languages, The parent language, Laryngeal theory" - W.C.; p. 589, 593 "Anatolian languages" - Philo H.J. Houwink ten Cate, H. Craig Melchert and Theo P.J. van den Hout
  34. ^ Britannica 15th edition, 22 p. 594, "Indo-Hittite hypothesis"
  35. ^ Holm, Hans J. (2008). "The Distribution of Data in Word Lists and its Impact on the Subgrouping of Languages". In Preisach, Christine; Burkhardt, Hans; Schmidt-Thieme, Lars et al. Data Analysis, Machine Learning, and Applications. Proc. of the 31st Annual Conference of the German Classification Society (GfKl), University of Freiburg, March 7–9, 2007. Studies in Classification, Data Analysis, and Knowledge Organization. Heidelberg-Berlin: Springer-Verlag. ISBN 978-3-540-78239-1. The result is a partly new chain of separation for the main Indo-European branches, which fits well to the grammatical facts, as well as to the geographical distribution of these branches. In particular it clearly demonstrates that the Anatolian languages did not part as first ones and thereby refutes the Indo-Hittite hypothesis. 
  36. ^ von Bradke 1890, p. 63
  37. ^ a b Anthony 2007, p. 56-58.
  38. ^ Ringe 2006, p. 67.
  39. ^ "Indo-European Languages: Balto-Slavic Family". 2008-11-10. Retrieved 2010-08-07. 
  40. ^ Ancient Tablet Found: Oldest Readable Writing in Europe


  • Anthony, David W. (2007). The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-05887-3. 
  • Auroux, Sylvain (2000). History of the Language Sciences. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. ISBN 3-11-016735-2. 
  • Fortson, Benjamin W. (2004). Indo-European Language and Culture: An Introduction. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell. ISBN 1-4051-0315-9. 
  • Brugmann, Karl (1886). Grundriss der Vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen (in German). Erster Band. Strassburg: Karl J. Trübner. 
  • Houwink ten Cate, H. J.; Melchert, H. Craig & van den Hout, Theo P. J. (1981). "Indo-European languages, The parent language, Laryngeal theory". Encyclopædia Britannica 22 (15th ed.). Chicago: Helen Hemingway Benton. 
  • Holm, Hans J. (2008). "The Distribution of Data in Word Lists and its Impact on the Subgrouping of Languages". In Preisach, Christine; Burkhardt, Hans; Schmidt-Thieme, Lars et al. Data Analysis, Machine Learning, and Applications. Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the German Classification Society (GfKl), University of Freiburg, March 7–9, 2007. Heidelberg-Berlin: Springer-Verlag. ISBN 978-3-540-78239-1. 
  • Kortlandt, Frederik (1990). "The Spread of the Indo-Europeans". Journal of Indo-European Studies 18 (1–2): 131–140. 
  • Lubotsky, A. (1988). "The Old Phrygian Areyastis-inscription". Kadmos 27: 9–26. 
  • Kortlandt, Frederik (1988). "The Thraco-Armenian consonant shift". Linguistique Balkanique 31: 71–74. 
  • Lane, George S.; Adams, Douglas Q. (1981). "The Tocharian problem". Encyclopædia Britannica 22 (15th ed.). Chicago: Helen Hemingway Benton. 
  • Renfrew, C. (2001). "The Anatolian origins of Proto-Indo-European and the autochthony of the Hittites". In Drews, R. Greater Anatolia and the Indo-Hittite language family. Washington, DC: Institute for the Study of Man. ISBN 0-941694-77-1. 
  • Szemerényi, Oswald; Jones, David; Jones, Irene (1999). Introduction to Indo-European Linguistics. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-823870-3. 
  • von Bradke, Peter (1890). Über Methode und Ergebnisse der arischen (indogermanischen) Alterthumswissenshaft (in German). Giessen: J. Ricker'che Buchhandlung. 

Further reading[edit]

External links[edit]