Incubator escapee wiki

Indo-European languages

Article Discussion
(Redirected from Indo-European Languages)

Template:Short description Template:Redirect Template:Pp-move

Template:Use Oxford spelling Template:Use dmy dates Template:Infobox language family {{#invoke:sidebar|collapsible |pretitle = Part of a series on |titlestyle = padding-top:0.2em;background:rgb(220,245,220); |title = Indo-European topics |image = File:Indo-European migrations.gif |listtitlestyle = background:rgb(220,245,220);padding-left:0.4em;text-align:left; |listclass = hlist |expanded =

|list1name = Languages |list1title = Languages

|list1 =

Extant

Extinct

Reconstructed

Hypothetical

Grammar

Other

|list2name = Philology |list2title = Philology |list2=

|list3name = Origins |list3title = Origins |list3=

Mainstream

Alternative and fringe

|list4name = Archaeology |list4title = Archaeology |list4 = Chalcolithic (Copper Age)
Pontic Steppe

Caucasus

East Asia

Eastern Europe

Northern Europe

Bronze Age
Pontic Steppe

Northern/Eastern Steppe

Europe

South Asia

Iron Age
Steppe

Europe

Caucasus

Central Asia

India

|list7name = Peoples and societies |list7title = Peoples and societies |list7= Bronze Age

Iron Age Indo-Aryans

Iranians

Nuristanis

East Asia

Europe

Middle Ages
East Asia

Europe

Indo-Aryan

Iranian

|list8name = Religion and mythology |list8title = Religion and mythology |list8 = Reconstructed

Historical

Indo-Aryan

Iranian

Others

European

Practices

|list9name = Academic research |list9title = Indo-European studies |list9 = Scholars

Institutes

Publications

| below = Template:Icon Category

}} The Indo-European languages are a language family native to the northern Indian subcontinent, most of Europe, and the Iranian plateau with additional native branches found in regions such as Sri Lanka, the Maldives, parts of Central Asia (e.g., Tajikistan and Afghanistan), Armenia, and areas of southern India. Historically, Indo-European languages were also spoken in Anatolia. Some European languages of this family—English, French, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish, and Dutch—have expanded through colonialism in the modern period and are now spoken across several continents. The Indo-European family is divided into several branches or sub-families, including Albanian, Armenian, Balto-Slavic, Celtic, Germanic, Hellenic, Indo-Iranian, and Italic, all of which contain present-day living languages; as well as many more extinct branches.

Today, the individual Indo-European languages with the most native speakers are English, Spanish, Portuguese, Russian, Hindustani, Bengali, French, and German; many others spoken by smaller groups are in danger of extinction. Over 3.4 billion people (42% of the global population) speak an Indo-European language as a first language—by far the most of any language family. There are about 446 living Indo-European languages, according to an estimate by Ethnologue, of which 313 belong to the Indo-Iranian branch.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref>

All Indo-European languages are descended from a single prehistoric language, linguistically reconstructed as Proto-Indo-European, spoken sometime during the Neolithic or early Bronze Age (Template:Circa). The geographical location where it was spoken, the Proto-Indo-European homeland, has been the object of many competing hypotheses; the academic consensus supports the Kurgan hypothesis, which posits the homeland to be the Pontic–Caspian steppe in what is now Ukraine and Southern Russia, associated with the Yamnaya culture and other related archaeological cultures during the 4th and early 3rd millennia BC. By the time the first written records appeared, Indo-European had already evolved into numerous languages spoken across much of Europe, South Asia, and part of Western Asia. Written evidence of Indo-European appeared during the Bronze Age in the form of Mycenaean Greek and the Anatolian languages of Hittite and Luwian. The oldest records are isolated Hittite words and names—interspersed in texts that are otherwise in the unrelated Akkadian language, a Semitic language—found in texts of the Assyrian colony of Kültepe in eastern Anatolia dating to the 20th century BC.<ref>Template:Cite book</ref> Although no older written records of the original Proto-Indo-European population remain, some aspects of their culture and their religion can be reconstructed from later evidence in the daughter cultures.<ref>Template:Cite book</ref> 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 Egyptian and the Semitic languages, which belong to the Afroasiatic language family. 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 language family is not considered by the current academic consensus in the field of linguistics to have any genetic relationships with other language families, although several disputed hypotheses propose such relations.

History of Indo-European linguisticsEdit

Template:See also During 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)Template:Sfn 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 devaḥ/dio 'God', sarpaḥ/serpe 'serpent', sapta/sette 'seven', aṣṭa/otto 'eight', and nava/nove 'nine').Template:Sfn However, neither Stephens' nor Sassetti's observations led to further scholarly inquiry.Template:Sfn

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 that he called Scythian.Template:Sfn 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.

Ottoman Turkish traveller 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.<ref name=Lomonosov>M. V. Lomonosov (drafts for Russian Grammar, published 1755). In: Complete Edition, Moscow, 1952, vol. 7, pp. 652–659 Template:Webarchive: 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!]</ref>

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,<ref>Template:Cite book</ref> though his classification contained some inaccuracies and omissions.<ref>Template:Cite book Blench erroneously included Egyptian, Japanese, and Chinese in the Indo-European languages, while omitting Hindi.</ref> 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:

<templatestyles src="Template:Blockquote/styles.css" />

The Sanscrit Template: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.Template:Notetag{{#if:Sir William JonesELIOHS<ref name=Jones-1807>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=web }} taken from: Template:Cite book</ref>Third Anniversary Discourse delivered 2 February 1786|{{#if:|}}

— {{#if:|, in }}Template:Comma separated entries

}}

{{#invoke:Check for unknown parameters|check|unknown=Template:Main other|preview=Page using Template:Blockquote with unknown parameter "_VALUE_"|ignoreblank=y| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | author | by | char | character | cite | class | content | multiline | personquoted | publication | quote | quotesource | quotetext | sign | source | style | text | title | ts }}

Thomas Young first used the term Indo-European in 1813, deriving it from the geographical extremes of the language family: from Western Europe to North India.<ref>Template:Cite book</ref><ref>In London Quarterly Review X/2 1813.; cf. Template:Harvnb</ref> 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.

File:Franz Bopp (2).jpg
Franz Bopp was a pioneer in the field of comparative linguistic studies.

Franz Bopp wrote in 1816 On the conjugational system of the Sanskrit language compared with that of Greek, Latin, Persian and Germanic<ref>Template:Cite book</ref> 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 Kuryłowicz's 1956 Apophony in Indo-European, who in 1927 pointed out the existence of the Hittite consonant ḫ.<ref>Template:Cite book</ref> Kuryłowicz's discovery supported Ferdinand de Saussure's 1879 proposal of the existence of {{#invoke:Lang|lang}}, 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.Template:Citation needed

ClassificationEdit

Template:See also The various subgroups of the Indo-European language family include ten major branches, listed below in alphabetical order:

|CitationClass=web }}</ref><ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref>

|CitationClass=web }}</ref> Homeric texts date to the 8th century BC.

|CitationClass=web }}</ref> Epigraphically from the 3rd century BC in the form of Prakrit (Edicts of Ashoka). The Rigveda is assumed to preserve intact records via oral tradition dating from c. the mid-2nd millennium BC in the form of Vedic Sanskrit. Includes a wide range of modern languages from North India, Eastern Pakistan and Bangladesh, including Hindustani (Hindi, Urdu), Bengali, Odia, Assamese, Punjabi, Kashmiri, Gujarati, Marathi, Sindhi and Nepali, as well as Sinhala of Sri Lanka and Dhivehi of the Maldives and Minicoy.

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.<ref>F. Ribezzo, Revue Internationale d'Onomastique, II, 1948 Template:P. sq. et III 1949, Template:P. sq., M.Almagro dans RSLig, XVI, 1950, Template:P. sq, P.Laviosa Zambotti, l.c.</ref><ref name="Bernard">Template:Cite book</ref>
  • 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 widely accepted, possibly related to Italic or Anatolian.<ref name="Olga">Template:Cite book</ref><ref>Template:Cite book</ref>
  • Illyrian: possibly related to Albanian, Messapian, or both
  • Liburnian: evidence too scant and uncertain to determine anything with certainty
  • Ligurian: possibly close to or part of Celtic.<ref name=kruta1>Template:Cite book</ref>
  • Lusitanian: possibly related to (or part of) Celtic, Ligurian, or Italic
  • Ancient Macedonian: proposed relationship to Greek.
  • Messapic: not conclusively deciphered, often considered to be related to Albanian as the available fragmentary linguistic evidence shows common characteristic innovations and a number of significant lexical correspondences between the two languages<ref>Template:Cite book pp. 283–286.</ref><ref>Template:Cite book p. 388</ref><ref>Template:Cite journal</ref>
  • Paionian: extinct language once spoken north of Macedon
  • Phrygian: language of the ancient Phrygians. Very likely, but not certainly, a sister group to Hellenic.
  • 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.<ref>Template:Cite book</ref>
  • 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.<ref>Template:Cite book</ref><ref>Template:Cite book</ref>
File:Indo-European language tree (with major international languages highlighted).svg
Indo-European family tree in order of first attestation
File:IndoEuropeanLanguageFamilyRelationsChart.jpg
Indo-European language family tree based on "Ancestry-constrained phylogenetic analysis of Indo-European languages" by Chang et al.<ref name=chang />

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.<ref name=remco>Template:Cite journal</ref><ref name=drinka>Template:Cite journal</ref><ref name=chang>Template:Cite journal</ref> 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 modelEdit

Template:See also 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.<ref>Template:Citation</ref> Most approaches to Indo-European subgrouping to date have assumed that the tree model is by-and-large valid for Indo-European;<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref> however, there is also a long tradition of wave-model approaches.<ref>Template:Cite book</ref><ref>Template:Cite book</ref>Template:Sfn

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 *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.

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.<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref>

Proposed subgroupingsEdit

Template:Hypothetical Indo-European subfamilies 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.<ref>Template:Cite book</ref>

The Italo-Celtic subgroup was at one point uncontroversial, considered by Antoine Meillet to be even better established than Balto-Slavic.Template:Sfn The main lines of evidence included the genitive suffix -ī; the superlative suffix -m̥mo; the change of /p/ to /kʷ/ before another /kʷ/ in the same word (as in penkʷe > *kʷenkʷe > Latin {{#invoke:Lang|lang}}, Old Irish {{#invoke:Lang|lang}}); and the subjunctive morpheme -ā-.Template:Sfn This evidence was prominently challenged by Calvert Watkins,<ref>Template:Cite encyclopedia</ref> while Michael Weiss has argued for the subgroup.<ref>Template:Cite conference</ref>

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".<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref> Greek and Indo-Iranian share innovations mainly in verbal morphology and patterns of nominal derivation.<ref>Template:Cite book</ref> Relations have also been proposed between Phrygian and Greek,Template:Sfn and between Thracian and Armenian.Template:Sfn<ref>Template:Cite book</ref> 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 languagesTemplate:Sfn and Tocharian. Shared features with Balto-Slavic languages, on the other hand (especially present and preterit formations), might be due to later contacts.Template:Sfn

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<ref>The supposed autochthony of Hittites, the Indo-Hittite hypothesis and migration of agricultural "Indo-European" societies became intrinsically linked together by Colin Renfrew (Template:Harvnb).</ref> and the preservation of laryngeals.Template:Sfn 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.Template:Sfn Hans J. Holm, based on lexical calculations, arrives at a picture roughly replicating the general scholarly opinion and refuting the Indo-Hittite hypothesis.<ref>Template:Harvnb. 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.</ref>

Satem and centum languagesEdit

{{#invoke:Labelled list hatnote|labelledList|Main article|Main articles|Main page|Main pages}}

File:Indo-European isoglosses.png
Some significant isoglosses in Indo-European daughter languages at around 500 BC. Template:Legend Template:Legend Template:Legend Template:Legend Template:Legend Template:Legend

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 ({{#invoke:Lang|lang}}) and Latin ({{#invoke:Lang|lang}})—the initial palatovelar developed into a fricative {{#invoke:IPA|main}} in the former, but became an ordinary velar {{#invoke:IPA|main}} 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.Template:Sfn Kortlandt proposes that the ancestors of Balts and Slavs took part in satemization before being drawn later into the western Indo-European sphere.Template:Sfn

Proposed external relationsEdit

Template:More citations needed section From the very beginning of Indo-European studies, there have been attempts to link the Indo-European languages genealogically to other languages and language families. However, these theories remain highly controversial, and most specialists in Indo-European linguistics are sceptical or agnostic about such proposals.<ref name=Kallio2018>Template:Cite book</ref>

Proposals linking the Indo-European languages with a single language family include:<ref name=Kallio2018 />

Other proposed families include:<ref name=Kallio2018 />

Nostratic and Eurasiatic, in turn, have been included in even wider groupings, such as Borean, a language family separately proposed by Harold C. Fleming and Sergei Starostin that encompasses almost all of the world's natural languages with the exception of those native to sub-Saharan Africa, New Guinea, Australia, and the Andaman Islands.

EvolutionEdit

Proto-Indo-EuropeanEdit

{{#invoke:Labelled list hatnote|labelledList|Main article|Main articles|Main page|Main pages}}

File:Indo-European expansions.jpg
Scheme of Indo-European language dispersals from c. 4000 to 1000 BC, according to the widely held Kurgan hypothesis.
– Center: Steppe cultures
1 (black): Anatolian languages (archaic PIE)
2 (black): Afanasievo culture (early PIE)
3 (black) Yamnaya culture expansion (Pontic-Caspian steppe, Danube Valley) (late PIE)
4A (black): Western Corded Ware
4B-C (blue & dark blue): Bell Beaker; adopted by Indo-European speakers
5A-B (red): Eastern Corded ware
5C (red): Sintashta (Proto-Indo-Iranian)
6 (magenta): Andronovo
7A (purple): Indo-Aryans (Mittani)
7B (purple): Indo-Aryans (India)
[NN] (dark yellow): Proto-Balto-Slavic
8 (grey): Greek
9 (yellow):Iranians
– [not drawn]: Armenian, expanding from western steppe

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 is an inflected language, in which the grammatical relationships between words were signalled 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.

DiversificationEdit

Template:See also 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, Donald Ringe and Tandy Warnow propose the following evolutionary tree of Indo-European branches:Template:Sfn

David Anthony proposes the following sequence:Template:Sfn

  • 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 into Iranian and Old Indic 1800 BC

From 1500 BC the following sequence may be given:Template:Citation needed

|CitationClass=web }}</ref> Pre-Proto-Germanic gives rise to Proto-Germanic in southern Scandinavia. Homer and the beginning of Classical Antiquity. The Vedic civilization gives way to the Mahajanapadas as the Indo-Aryan tongue reaches eastwards, giving rise to the Greater Magadha cultural sphere, where Mahavira preaches Jainism and 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, Latin-Faliscan, and possibly Venetic and Siculian. A variety of Paleo-Balkan languages besides Greek are spoken in Southern Europe, including Thracian, Dacian and Illyrian, and in Anatolia (Phrygian). Development of Prakrits across the northern Indian subcontinent, as well as migration of Indo-Aryan speakers to Sri Lanka and the Maldives.

Key languages for reconstructionEdit

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 noticeably:Template:Sfn

  • Vedic Sanskrit (Template:Circa). 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 Rigveda (Template:Circa)).
  • Ancient Greek (Template:Circa). Mycenaean Greek (Template:Circa) 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, Template:Circa).
  • Hittite (Template:Circa). 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:

Other secondary sources, due to poor attestation:

Other secondary sources, due to extensive phonological changes and relatively limited attestation:Template:Sfn

Sound changesEdit

{{#invoke:Labelled list hatnote|labelledList|Main article|Main articles|Main page|Main pages}} As speakers of Proto-Indo-European (PIE) dispersed, the language's 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: Template:Ordered list

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:

  • 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 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
PIE Skr. O.C.S. Lith. Greek Latin Old Irish Gothic English Examples
PIE Eng. Skr. Gk. Lat. Lith. etc. Prs.
Template:PIE Template:PIE; Template:PIEH Template:PIE Template:PIE;
Template:PIET {{#invoke:IPA|main}} 		Template:PIE;
`-Template:PIE- {{#invoke:IPA|main}} 		Template:PIE;
-Template:PIE- 		*pṓds ~ *ped- foot pád- poús (podós) pēs (pedis) pãdas Piáde
Template:PIE Template:PIE; Template:PIEH Template:PIE Template:PIE;
-Template:PIE- {{#invoke:IPA|main}} 		Template:PIE {{#invoke:IPA|main}};
`-Template:PIE- {{#invoke:IPA|main}};
Template:PIET- 		Template:PIE;
`-Template:PIE-;
Template:PIET- 		*tréyes three tráyas treĩs trēs trỹs thri (old Persian)
Template:PIE Template:PIE {{#invoke:IPA|main}} Template:PIE Template:PIE {{#invoke:IPA|main}} Template:PIE Template:PIE {{#invoke:IPA|main}} Template:PIE {{#invoke:IPA|main}};
-Template:PIE- {{#invoke:IPA|main}} 		Template:PIE;
`-Template:PIE- {{#invoke:IPA|main}} 		Template:PIE;
-Template:PIE-;
`-Template:PIE- 		*ḱm̥tóm hund(red) śatám he-katón centum šimtas sad
Template:PIE Template:PIE; Template:PIEE {{#invoke:IPA|main}};
Template:PIEH 		Template:PIE;
Template:PIEE {{#invoke:IPA|main}};
Template:PIEE' {{#invoke:IPA|main}} 		Template:PIE *kreuh₂
"raw meat"		 OE hrēaw
raw		 kravíṣ- kréas cruor kraûjas xoreš
Template:PIE Template:PIE;
Template:PIEE;
Template:PIE(u) 		Template:PIE {{#invoke:IPA|main}};
Template:PIE(O) {{#invoke:IPA|main}} 		Template:PIE {{#invoke:IPA|main}};
`-Template:PIE- 		Template:PIE;
`-Template:PIE- 		*kʷid, kʷod what kím tí quid, quod kas, kad ce, ci
*kʷekʷlom wheel cakrá- kúklos kãklas carx
Template:PIE Template:PIE; Template:PIEH Template:PIE Template:PIE {{#invoke:IPA|main}};
-{{#invoke:IPA|main}}- 		Template:PIE
Template:PIE Template:PIE; Template:PIEH Template:PIE Template:PIE {{#invoke:IPA|main}};
-{{#invoke:IPA|main}}- 		Template:PIE *déḱm̥(t) ten,
Goth. taíhun		 dáśa déka decem dẽšimt dah
Template:PIE Template:PIE {{#invoke:IPA|main}};
Template:PIEH {{#invoke:IPA|main}} 		Template:PIE Template:PIE {{#invoke:IPA|main}} Template:PIE Template:PIE {{#invoke:IPA|main}};
-{{#invoke:IPA|main}}- 		Template:PIE Template:PIE;
Template:PIEE' 		*ǵénu, *ǵnéu- OE cnēo
knee		 jā́nu gónu genu zánu
Template:PIE Template:PIE;
Template:PIEE {{#invoke:IPA|main}};
Template:PIEH;
Template:PIEH,E {{#invoke:IPA|main}} 		Template:PIE;
Template:PIEE {{#invoke:IPA|main}};
Template:PIEE' 		Template:PIE *yugóm yoke yugám zugón iugum jùngas yugh
Template:PIE Template:PIE;
Template:PIEe;
Template:PIE(u) 		Template:PIE {{#invoke:IPA|main}};
Template:PIEn− {{#invoke:IPA|main}} 		Template:PIE {{#invoke:IPA|main}};
-{{#invoke:IPA|main}}- 		Template:PIE {{#invoke:IPA|main}} Template:PIE *gʷīw- quick
"alive"		 jīvá- bíos,
bíotos		 vīvus gývas ze-
Template:PIE Template:PIE;
Template:PIE..Ch 		Template:PIE Template:PIE;
Template:PIE..Ch 		Template:PIE-;
Template:PIE 		Template:PIE {{#invoke:IPA|main}};
-{{#invoke:IPA|main}}-;
-Template:PIE 		Template:PIE;
-Template:PIE-(rl) 		*bʰéroh₂ bear "carry" bhar- phérō ferō OCS berǫ bar-
Template:PIE Template:PIE;
Template:PIE..Ch 		Template:PIE Template:PIE;
Template:PIE..Ch 		Template:PIE-;
Template:PIE;
Template:PIE(r),l,u- 		Template:PIE {{#invoke:IPA|main}};
-{{#invoke:IPA|main}}- 		Template:PIE {{#invoke:IPA|main}};
-{{#invoke:IPA|main}}-;
-Template:PIE 		Template:PIE *dʰwer-, dʰur- door dvā́raḥ thurā́ forēs dùrys dar
Template:PIE Template:PIE {{#invoke:IPA|main}};
Template:PIE..Ch 		Template:PIE Template:PIE {{#invoke:IPA|main}} Template:PIE;
Template:PIE..Ch 		Template:PIE;
Template:PIER 		Template:PIE {{#invoke:IPA|main}};
-{{#invoke:IPA|main}}- 		Template:PIE;
-Template:PIE- {{#invoke:IPA|main}};
-Template:PIE {{#invoke:IPA|main}} 		Template:PIE;
-Template:PIE-(rl) 		*ǵʰans- goose,
OHG gans		 haṁsáḥ khḗn (h)ānser žąsìs gház
Template:PIE Template:PIE;
Template:PIEE {{#invoke:IPA|main}};
Template:PIE..Ch;
Template:PIEE..Ch 		Template:PIE;
Template:PIEE {{#invoke:IPA|main}};
Template:PIEE' 		Template:PIE
Template:PIE Template:PIE;
Template:PIEE;
Template:PIE(u);
Template:PIE..Ch;
Template:PIEE..Ch;
Template:PIE(u)..Ch 		Template:PIE-;
Template:PIE /
-Template:PIE- {{#invoke:IPA|main}};
nTemplate:PIE {{#invoke:IPA|main}} 		Template:PIE;
Template:PIE-;
-Template:PIE-;
nTemplate:PIE 		Template:PIE;
Template:PIE-;
-Template:PIE- 		*sneigʷʰ- snow sneha- nípha nivis sniẽgas barf
*gʷʰerm- ??warm gharmáḥ thermós formus Latv. gar̂me garm
Template:PIE Template:PIE Template:PIE-;
-Template:PIE;
Template:PIE(T);
-Template:PIE-;
{{#invoke:IPA|main}}(R) 		Template:PIE;
-Template:PIE- 		Template:PIE {{#invoke:IPA|main}};
-{{#invoke:IPA|main}}- 		Template:PIE;
`-Template:PIE- 		Template:PIE;
`-Template:PIE- 		*septḿ̥ seven saptá heptá septem septynì haft
Template:PIEruki- {{#invoke:IPA|main}} Template:PIEruki- {{#invoke:IPA|main}} Template:PIEruki- {{#invoke:IPA|main}} *h₂eusōs
"dawn"		 east uṣā́ḥ āṓs aurōra aušra báxtar
Template:PIE Template:PIE Template:PIE {{#invoke:IPA|main}};
-{{#invoke:IPA|main}}- 		Template:PIE *mūs mouse mū́ṣ- mũs mūs OCS myšĭ muš
Template:PIE -Template:PIE -Template:PIE {{#invoke:IPA|main}} -Template:PIE -Template:PIE -Template:PIE -Template:PIE *ḱm̥tóm hund(red) śatám (he)katón centum OPrus simtan sad
Template:PIE Template:PIE Template:PIE;
-Template:PIE {{#invoke:IPA|main}} 		Template:PIE *nokʷt- night nákt- núkt- noct- naktis náštá
Template:PIE Template:PIE (dial. Template:PIE) Template:PIE *leuk- light ruc- leukós lūx laũkas ruz
Template:PIE Template:PIE *h₁reudʰ- red rudhirá- eruthrós ruber raũdas sorx
Template:PIE Template:PIE {{#invoke:IPA|main}} Template:PIE {{#invoke:IPA|main}} Template:PIE {{#invoke:IPA|main}} /
Template:PIE;
-Template:PIE- 		Template:PIE {{#invoke:IPA|main}};
-Template:PIE- 		Template:PIE Template:PIE Template:PIE *yugóm yoke yugám zugón iugum jùngas yugh
Template:PIE Template:PIE {{#invoke:IPA|main}} Template:PIE Template:PIE {{#invoke:IPA|main}} Template:PIE Template:PIE {{#invoke:IPA|main}} Template:PIE;
-Template:PIE- 		Template:PIE *h₂weh₁n̥to- wind vā́taḥ áenta ventus vėtra bád
PIE Skr. O.C.S. Lith. Greek Latin Old Irish Gothic English
Notes:

Comparison of conjugationsEdit

The following table presents a comparison of conjugations of the thematic present indicative of the verbal root *Template:PIE 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.

Proto-Indo-European
(*Template:PIE 'to carry, to bear')
I (1st sg.) *Template:PIE
You (2nd sg.) *Template:PIE
He/She/It (3rd sg.) *Template:PIE
We two (1st dual) *Template:PIE
You two (2nd dual) *Template:PIE
They two (3rd dual) *Template:PIE
We (1st pl.) *Template:PIE
You (2nd pl.) *Template:PIE
They (3rd pl.) *Template:PIE
Major subgroup Hellenic Indo-Iranian Italic Celtic Armenian Germanic Balto-Slavic Albanian
Indo-Aryan Iranian Baltic Slavic
Ancient representative Ancient Greek Vedic Sanskrit Avestan Latin Old Irish Classical Armenian Gothic Old Prussian Old Church Sl. Old Albanian
I (1st sg.) phérō bʰárāmi barāmi ferō biru; berim berem baíra /bɛra/ *bera berǫ *berja
You (2nd sg.) phéreis bʰárasi barahi fers biri; berir beres baíris *bera bereši *berje
He/She/It (3rd sg.) phérei bʰárati baraiti fert berid berē baíriþ *bera beretъ *berjet
We two (1st dual) — bʰárāvas barāvahi — — — baíros — berevě —
You two (2nd dual) phéreton bʰárathas — — — — baírats — bereta —
They two (3rd dual) phéreton bʰáratas baratō — — — — — berete —
We (1st pl.) phéromen bʰárāmas barāmahi ferimus bermai beremkʿ baíram *beramai beremъ *berjame
You (2nd pl.) phérete bʰáratha baraθa fertis beirthe berēkʿ baíriþ *beratei berete *berjeju
They (3rd pl.) phérousi bʰáranti barəṇti ferunt berait beren baírand *bera berǫtъ *berjanti
Modern representative Modern Greek Hindustani Persian Portuguese Irish Armenian (Eastern; Western) German Lithuanian Slovene Albanian
I (1st sg.) férno (ma͠i) bʰarūm̥ (man) {mi}baram {con}firo beirim berum em; g'perem (ich) {ge}bäre beriu bérem (unë) bie
You (2nd sg.) férnis (tū) bʰarē (tu) {mi}bari {con}feres beirir berum es; g'peres (du) {ge}bierst beri béreš (ti) bie
He/She/It (3rd sg.) férni (ye/vo) bʰarē (ān) {mi}barad {con}fere beiridh berum ē; g'perē (er/sie/es) {ge}biert beria bére (ai/ajo) bie
We two (1st dual) — — — — — — — beriava béreva —
You two (2nd dual) — — — — — — — beriata béreta —
They two (3rd dual) — — — — — — — beria béreta —
We (1st pl.) férnume (ham) bʰarēm̥ (mā) {mi}barim {con}ferimos beirimid; beiream berum enkʿ; g'perenkʿ (wir) {ge}bären beriame béremo (ne) biem
You (2nd pl.) férnete (tum) bʰaro (šomā) {mi}barid {con}feris beirthidh berum ekʿ; g'perekʿ (ihr) {ge}bärt beriate bérete (ju) bini
They (3rd pl.) férnun (ye/vo) bʰarēm̥ (ānān) {mi}barand {con}ferem beirid berum en; g'peren (sie) {ge}bären beria bérejo; berọ́ (ata/ato) bien

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 parentheses 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. Apart from the first person, the forms given in the table above are dialectical or obsolete. The second and third person forms are typically instead conjugated periphrastically by adding a pronoun after the verb: beireann tú, beireann sé/sí, beireann sibh, beireann siad.
  • The Hindustani (Hindi and Urdu) verb bʰarnā, 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.<ref name=":1">Template:Cite journal</ref> The loss of the present indicative in Hindustani is roughly compensated by the periphrastic habitual indicative construction, using the habitual participle (etymologically from the Sanskrit present participle bʰarant-) and an auxiliary: ma͠i bʰartā hū̃, tū bʰartā hai, vah bʰartā hai, ham bʰarte ha͠i, tum bʰarte ho, ve bʰarte ha͠i (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 Template:Circa would have looked like. The descendant of Proto-Germanic *beraną (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 Portuguese, other verbs now mean "to carry" (e.g. Pt. portar < Lat. portare) and ferre was borrowed and nativized only in compounds such as {{#invoke:Lang|lang}} "to suffer" (from Latin sub- and ferre) and {{#invoke:Lang|lang}} "to confer" (from Latin "con-" and "ferre").
  • In Modern Greek, phero φέρω (modern transliteration fero) "to bear" is still used but only in specific contexts and is most common in such compounds as αναφέρω, διαφέρω, εισφέρω, εκφέρω, καταφέρω, προφέρω, προαναφέρω, προσφέρω etc. The form that is (very) common today is pherno φέρνω (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.
  • The dual forms are archaic in standard Lithuanian, and are only presently used in some dialects (e.g. Samogitian).
  • Among modern Slavic languages, only Slovene continues to have a dual number in the standard variety.

Comparison of cognatesEdit

{{#invoke:Labelled list hatnote|labelledList|Main article|Main articles|Main page|Main pages}} Template:See also

Present distributionEdit

Template:See also

File:Indo-European distribution.svg
Template:Legend Template:Legend Template:Legend Template:Legend Template:Legend
File:Americaslanguages (orthographic projection)-2.png
Distribution of Indo-European languages in the Americas
Romance: Template:Legend Template:Legend Template:Legend Germanic: Template:Legend Template:Legend

Today, Indo-European languages are spoken by billions of native speakers across all inhabited continents,<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> the largest number by far for any recognized language family. Of the 20 languages with the largest numbers of speakers according to Ethnologue, 10 are Indo-European: English, Hindustani, Spanish, Bengali, French, Russian, Portuguese, German, Persian and Punjabi, each with 100 million speakers or more.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> 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 around 600 million<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> 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.

See alsoEdit

Template:Sister project Template:Sister project

Template:Col div

Template:Colend

NotesEdit

Template:NoteFoot

ReferencesEdit

CitationsEdit

Template:Reflist

SourcesEdit

Template:Sfn whitelist Template:Refbegin

Template:Refend

Further readingEdit

External linksEdit

Template:Sister project Template:EB1911 poster Template:Library resources box

DatabasesEdit

  • {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=web }}

  • {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=web }}

  • {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=web }}

|CitationClass=web }}

  • {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=web }}

LexicaEdit

  • {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=web }}

|CitationClass=web }}

Template:Indo-European languages Template:Language families Template:Eurasian languages Template:Authority control

Retrieved from "https://zalansite.site/mediawiki/index.php?title=Indo-European_languages&oldid=9438"