Indo-European

languages

This article has multiple issues. Please help

improve it or discuss these issues on the talkmore
Learn

The Indo-European languages are a

language family of several hundred related
languages and dialects.[2]
 Indo-European
Geographic Originally (pre-colonial
distribution era) parts of Asia and
large parts of Europe,
now worldwide
c. 3.2 billion native speakers

Linguistic classification One of the world's

primary language
families

Proto-language Proto-Indo-European

Subdivisions Albanian
Armenian
Balto-Slavic (Baltic and
Slavic languages)
 Celtic
Germanic
Hellenic (including Greek)
Indo-Iranian (Indo-Aryan,
Iranian, and Nuristani)

Italic (including Romance

languages)

Anatolian †
Illyrian †
Daco-Thracian †
Tocharian †
ISO 639-2 / 5 ine

Glottolog indo1319 [1]

Present-day distribution of Indo-European
languages, within their homeland of Eurasia:
   Albanian
   Armenian
   Balto-Slavic (Baltic)
   Balto-Slavic (Slavic)
   Celtic
   Germanic
   Hellenic (Greek)
   Indo-Iranian (Indo-Aryan, Iranian, and
Nuristani)
    Italic (Romance)
   Non-Indo-European languages
Dotted/striped areas indicate where
multilingualism
Notes is common
Italicized branches
mean only one extant
language of the branch
remains
† indicates this branch
of the language family
is extinct

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.[3] The Indo-European languages
with the greatest numbers of native
speakers are Spanish, English, Hindustani
(Hindi/Urdu), Portuguese, Bengali, Punjabi,
and Russian, each with over 100 million
speakers, with German, French, Marathi,
Italian, and Persian also having more than
50 million. Today, 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.

The Indo-European family includes most

of the modern languages of Europe. The
language family is also represented in Asia
with the exception of East and Southeast
Asia. It was prominent (alongside non-
Indo-European languages) in ancient
Anatolia (present-day Turkey), the ancient
Tarim Basin (present-day Northwest
China) and most of Central Asia until the
medieval Turkic and Mongol invasions.
Outside Eurasia, Indo-European languages
are dominant in the Americas and much of
Oceania and Africa, having reached there
through colonialism during the Age of
Discovery and later periods. Indo-European
languages are also most commonly
present as minority languages or second
languages in countries where other
families are dominant.

With written evidence appearing from the

Bronze Age in the form of Mycenaean
Greek and the Anatolian languages Hittite
and Luwian, the Indo-European family is
significant to the field of historical
linguistics as possessing the second-
longest recorded history, after the
Afroasiatic family in the form of the
Egyptian language and the Semitic
languages of the Near East. In addition,
certain extinct language isolates of the
Near East and Anatolia, such as Sumerian,
Elamite, Hurrian, Hattian, Gutian and
Kassite are also recorded earlier than any
Indo-European tongue.

All Indo-European languages are

descendants of a single prehistoric
language, reconstructed as Proto-Indo-
European, spoken sometime in the
Neolithic era. Although no written records
remain, aspects of the culture and religion
of the Proto-Indo-Europeans can be
reconstructed from the related cultures of
ancient and modern Indo-European
speakers who continue to live in areas
where the Proto-Indo-Europeans migrated
from their original homeland.[4] Several
disputed proposals link Indo-European to
other major language families. Although
they are written in the Semitic Old Assyrian
language and with the use of the
Cuneiform script of Mesopotamia, the
Hittite words and names found in the texts
of the Assyrian colony of Kültepe in
eastern Anatolia are the oldest record of
any Indo-European language.[5]
During the nineteenth century, the
linguistic concept of Indo-European
languages was frequently used
interchangeably with the racial concepts
of Aryan and Japhetite.[6]

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)[7] 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").[7] However, neither Stephens' nor
Sassetti's observations led to further
scholarly inquiry.[7]

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.[8] 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.[9]
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,[10]
though his classification contained some
inaccuracies and omissions.[11] 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.[note 1]

— Sir William Jones, Third Anniversary

Discourse delivered 2 February 1786,
ELIOHS[12]

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.[13][14] 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[15] 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.[16] Kuryłowicz'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.

Classification
The various subgroups of the Indo-
European language family include ten
major branches, listed below in
alphabetical order
Albanian, attested from the 15th century
AD;[17] Proto-Albanian evolved from an
ancient Paleo-Balkan language,
traditionally thought to be Illyrian;[18]
however, the evidence supporting this is
insufficient.[19]
Anatolian, extinct by Late Antiquity,
spoken in Asia Minor, 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.[20][21]
Armenian, attested from the early 5th
century AD.
Balto-Slavic, believed by most Indo-
Europeanists[22] 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,
Montenegrin, Macedonian, Bosnian,
Croatian, 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 Gaelic 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.[23] 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 Asia Minor,
showing traces of Indo-Aryan
words.[24][25] 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 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, Assamese,
Punjabi, Kashmiri, Gujarati, Marathi,
Odia 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
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, which include
Italian, Spanish, French, Portuguese,
Romanian, Catalan, Galician and
Romansh.
Tocharian, with proposed links to the
Afanasevo culture of Southern
Siberia.[26] 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:

Cimmerian: possibly Iranic, Thracian, or

Celtic
Dacian: possibly very close to Thracian
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.[27]
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.[28]
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.[29][30]

Grouping
Indo-European family tree in order of first attestation

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.
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.[31] Most
approaches to Indo-European subgrouping
to date have assumed that the tree model
is by-and-large valid for Indo-European;[32]
however, there is also a long tradition of
wave-model approaches.[33][34][35]

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.[36]

Proposed subgroupings

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.[37]
The Italo-Celtic subgroup was at one point
uncontroversial, considered by Antoine
Meillet to be even better established than
Balto-Slavic.[38] The main lines of evidence
included the genitive suffix -ī; the
superlative suffix -m̥ mo; the change of /p/
to /kʷ/ before another /kʷ/ in the same
word (as in penkʷe > *kʷenkʷe > Latin
quīnque, Old Irish cóic); and the
subjunctive morpheme -ā-.[39] This
evidence was prominently challenged by
Calvert Watkins;[40] while Michael Weiss
has argued for the subgroup.[41]
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".[42] Greek and Indo-
Iranian share innovations mainly in verbal
morphology and patterns of nominal
derivation.[43] Relations have also been
proposed between Phrygian and Greek,[44]
and between Thracian and
Armenian.[45][46] 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[47]
and Tocharian. Shared features with Balto-
Slavic languages, on the other hand
(especially present and preterit
formations), might be due to later
contacts.[48]

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[49] and the preservation of
laryngeals.[50] 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.[51] Hans J. Holm,
based on lexical calculations, arrives at a
picture roughly replicating the general
scholarly opinion and refuting the Indo-
Hittite hypothesis.[52]

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.[53] Kortlandt proposes that the
ancestors of Balts and Slavs took part in
satemization before being drawn later into
the western Indo-European sphere.[54]

Suggested macrofamilies

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 the smaller
proposed macrofamilies include:

Pontic, postulated by John Colarusso,

which joins Indo-European with
 Northwest Caucasian
Indo-Uralic, joining Indo-European with
Uralic

Other, greater proposed families including

Indo-European languages, include:

Eurasiatic, a theory championed by

Joseph Greenberg
Nostratic, comprising all or some of the
Eurasiatic languages, as well as the
Kartvelian, Uralic, Dravidian (or even the
Elamo-Dravidian macrofamily), Altaic,
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 steadily 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 c. 3500 BC

IE languages c. 2500 BC
 IE languages c. 1500 BC

IE languages c. 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:[55]

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;[55]
proto-Germanic c. 500 BC[56]

David Anthony proposes the following

sequence:[57]

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:

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 Rigveda 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.[58] 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:[59]

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 Rigveda (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 a large
number of 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:[60]
 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" 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:
 bʰ → b → p → f
dʰ → d → t → θ
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 dʰ 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 kʷ: 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 "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 ē ī). 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 /ʃ/

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.
Proto-Indo-European consonants and their reflexes in selected Indo-European daughter languag

PIE Skr. O.C.S. Lith. Greek Latin Old Irish Gothic English
PIE

Ø; f; f;
*p p; phH p *pṓds ~ *ped-
chT [x] `-b- [β] -v/f-

þ [θ]; th;
t;
*t t; thH t `-d- [ð]; `-d-; *tréyes
-th- [θ]
tT- tT-

*ḱ ś [ɕ] s š [ʃ] h; *ḱm̥ tóm

h;
k c [k] -Ø-; *kreuh₂
*k `-g- [ɣ]
k; c [k]; `-y- "raw meat"
k; cE [tʃ];
čE [tʃ]; k p; -ch- [x]
khH *kʷid, kʷod
qu [kʷ]; ƕ [ʍ]; wh;
*kʷ cE' [ts] tE;
c(O) [k] `-gw/w- `-w- *kʷekʷlom
k(u)

b [b];
*b b; bhH b p
-[β]-

d [d];
*d d; dhH d t *déḱm̥ (t)
-[ð]-

j [dʒ];
*ǵ z ž [ʒ] g [ɡ]; c / k; *ǵénu, *ǵnéu-
hH [ɦ] g k
-[ɣ]- chE'
*g g; *yugóm
g;
jE [dʒ]; b;
žE [ʒ]; g u [w > v];
*gʷ ghH; de; q [kʷ] qu *gʷīw-
H,E
dzE' gun− [ɡʷ]
h [ɦ] g(u) b [b];
-[β]- b [b];
bh; ph; f-; b;
*bʰ b -[β]-; *bʰerō
b..Ch p..Ch b -v/f-(rl)
-f

*dʰ dh; d th; f-; d [d]; d [d]; d *dʰwer-, dʰur-

d..Ch t..Ch d; -[ð]- -[ð]-;
 b(r),l,u- -þ

h [ɦ]; g;
*ǵʰ z ž [ʒ] kh; h; g; *ǵʰans-
j..Ch -g- [ɣ];
k..Ch h/gR -y/w-(rl)
*gʰ -g [x]

ph; g [ɡ];
gh;
g; thE; f-; g; *sneigʷʰ-
hE [ɦ]; -[ɣ]- g;
žE [ʒ]; g kh(u); g/ b-;
*gʷʰ g..Ch; E' b-;
E..Ch
dz p..Ch; -u- [w]; -w-;
j -w-
tE..Ch; ngu [ɡʷ] ngw
*gʷʰerm-
(u)..Ch
k

h-;
s *septḿ̥
-s;
s; s [s]; s; s;
*s s(T);
-r- -[h]- `-z- `-r- *h₂eusōs
ṣruki- [ʂ] xruki- [x] šruki- [ʃ] -Ø-;
"dawn"
[¯](R)

m [m];
*m m m *mūs
-[w̃ ]-

*-m -m -˛ [˜] -n -m -n -Ø *ḱm̥ tóm

n;
*n n n *nokʷt-
-˛ [˜]

*l r (dial. l) l *leuk-

*r r *h₁reudʰ-

z [dz > zd, z] /

i [j];
*i ̯ y [j] j [j] h; Ø j y *yugóm
-Ø-
-Ø-

f;
*u̯ v [ʋ] v v [ʋ] w>h/Ø u [w > v] w *h₂weh₁n̥to-
-Ø-

PIE Skr. O.C.S. Lith. Greek Latin Old Irish Gothic English
Notes:
C- At the beginning of a word.
-C- Between vowels.
-C At the end of a word.
`-C- Following an unstressed vowel
(Verner's law).
-C-(rl) Between vowels, or between a
vowel and r, l (on either side).
CT Before a (PIE) stop (p, t, k).
CT− After a (PIE) obstruent (p, t, k, etc.;
s).
C(T) Before or after an obstruent (p, t, k,
etc.; s).
CH Before an original laryngeal.
CE Before a (PIE) front vowel (i, e).
CE' Before secondary (post-PIE) front-
vowels.
Ce Before e.
C(u) Before or after a (PIE) u (boukólos
rule).
C(O) Before or after a (PIE) o, u
(boukólos rule).
Cn− After n.
CR Before a sonorant (r, l, m, n).
C(R) Before or after a sonorant (r, l, m, n).
C(r),l,u− Before r, l or after r, u.
Cruki− After r, u, k, i (Ruki sound law).
C..Ch Before an aspirated consonant in
the next syllable (Grassmann's law, also
known as dissimilation of aspirates).
CE..Ch Before a (PIE) front vowel (i, e) as
well as before an aspirated consonant in
the next syllable (Grassmann's law, also
known as dissimilation of aspirates).
C(u)..Ch Before or after a (PIE) u as well
as before an aspirated consonant in the
next syllable (Grassmann's law, also
known as dissimilation of aspirates).
Comparison of conjugations

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.
 Proto-Indo-European
(*bʰer- 'to carry, to bear')

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

 Indo-Iranian
Major
Hellenic Indo- Italic Celtic Armenian Germanic
subgroup Iranian
Aryan

Ancient Ancient Vedic Classical

Avestan Latin Old Irish Gothic
representative Greek Sanskrit Arm. P

baíra
I (1st sg.) phérō bhárāmi barā ferō biru; berim berem
/bɛra/

You (2nd sg.) phéreis bhárasi barahi fers biri; berir beres baíris

He/She/It (3rd
phérei bhárati baraiti fert berid berē baíriþ
sg.)

We (1st dual) — bhárāvas barāvahi — — — baíros

You (2nd dual) phéreton bhárathas — — — — baírats

They (3rd
phéreton bháratas baratō — — — —
dual)

We (1st pl.) phéromen bhárāmas barāmahi ferimus bermai beremk` baíram *b

You (2nd pl.) phérete bháratha baraϑa fertis beirthe berēk` baíriþ *

They (3rd pl.) phérousi bháranti barəṇti ferunt berait beren baírand

Armenian
Modern Modern
Hindustani Persian Irish (Eastern; German Lit
representative Greek
Western)

berum
(maiṃ) (man) (ich)
I (1st sg.) férno beirim em;
bharūṃ {mi}baram {ge}bäre
g'perem

(tu) berum es; (du)

You (2nd sg.) férnis (tū) bhare beirir
{mi}bari g'peres {ge}bierst

He/She/It (3rd férni (vah) (ān) beireann; berum ē; (er)(sie)

sg.) bhare {mi}barad %beiridh g'perē (es)
 {ge}biert

We (1st dual) b

You (2nd dual) b

They (3rd
dual)

berum
(ham) (mā) beirimid; (wir)
We (1st pl.) férnume enk`; b
bhareṃ {mi}barim beiream {ge}bären
g'perenk`

beireann berum
(tum) (šomā) (ihr)
You (2nd pl.) férnete sibh; ek`; b
bharo {mi}barid {ge}bärt
%beirthaoi g'perek`

(ve) (ānān) berum en; (sie)

They (3rd pl.) férnun beirid
bhareṃ {mi}barand g'peren {ge}bären

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 Hindi 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 subjunctive. The present
indicative is conjugated periphrastically,
using a participle (etymologically the
Sanskrit present participle bharant-) and
an auxiliary: maiṃ bhartā hūṃ, tū bhartā
hai, vah bhartā hai, ham bharte haiṃ, tum
bharte ho, ve bharte haiṃ (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 only borrowed
and nativized 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 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.
 In Modern Russian брать (brat') carries
the meaning to take. Бремя (br'em'a)
means burden, as something heavy to
bear, and derivative беременность
(b'er'em'ennost') means pregnancy.

Comparison of cognates

Present distribution

   Official or Primary Language

   Secondary Official Language
    Recognized
   Significant
   No use

The approximate present-day distribution of Indo-

European languages within the Americas by country:
Romance:
   Spanish
   Portuguese–Galician
   French
Germanic:
   English
h
    Dutch

Today, Indo-European languages are

spoken by 3.2 billion native speakers
across all inhabited continents,[61] 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.[62]
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[63] and
one billion[64] 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.
See also
Grammatical conjugation
The Horse, the Wheel, and Language
(book)
Indo-European copula
Indo-European sound laws
Indo-European studies
Indo-Semitic languages
Indo-Uralic languages
Eurasiatic languages
Language family
Languages of Asia
 Languages of Europe
Languages of India
List of Indo-European languages
Proto-Indo-European root
Proto-Indo-European religion

Notes
1. The sentence goes on to say, equally
correctly as it turned out: "...here is a
similar reason, though not quite so
forcible, for supposing that both the
Gothic and the Celtic, though blended
with a very different idiom, had the
same origin with the Sanscrit; and the
 old Persian might be added to the
same family."

References
Citations

1. Hammarström, Harald; Forkel, Robert;

Haspelmath, Martin, eds. (2017).
"Indo-European" . Glottolog 3.0. Jena,
Germany: Max Planck Institute for the
Science of Human History.
2. Quiles, Carlos (June 2017). "Indo-
European demic diffusion model"
(PDF) (2nd ed.). Badajoz: Universidad
de Extremadura. Retrieved March 24,
2018.
3. "Ethnologue report for Indo-
European" . Ethnologue.com.
4. Mallory, J. P. (2006). The Oxford
Introduction to Proto-Indo-European
and the Proto-Indo-European World.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
p. 442. ISBN 9780 199287918.
5. Bryce, Trevor (2005). Kingdom of the
Hittites: New Edition. Oxford University
Press. p. 37. ISBN 978-0-19-928132-9.
6. Colin Kidd (2006). The Forging of
Races: Race and Scripture in the
Protestant Atlantic World, 1600–
2000 . Cambridge University Press.
pp. 23–. ISBN 978-1-139-45753-8.
7. Auroux, Sylvain (2000). History of the
Language Sciences . Berlin, New York:
Walter de Gruyter. p. 1156. ISBN 978-3-
11-016735-1.
8. Beekes, Robert S.P. (2011).
Comparative Indo-European
Linguistics: An introduction. Second
edition . John Benjamins Publishing.
p. 12. ISBN 978-90-272-8500-3.
9. M.V. Lomonosov (drafts for Russian
Grammar, published 1755). In:
Complete Edition, Moscow, 1952, vol.
7, pp. 652–59 : 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!]
10. "Indo-European Practice and Historical
Methodology (cited on pp. 14–15)"
(PDF). Retrieved 2010-08-07.
11. Roger Blench. "Archaeology and
Language: methods and issues"
(PDF). Archived from the original
(PDF) on May 17, 2006. Retrieved
May 29, 2010. 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.)
12. Jones, William (2 February 1786). "The
Third Anniversary Discourse" .
Electronic Library of Historiography.
Universita degli Studi Firenze, taken
from: Shore (Lord Teignmouth), John
(1807). The Works of Sir William
Jones. With a Life of the Author. III.
John Stockdale and John Walker.
pp. 24–46. OCLC 899731310 .
13. 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 978-
0-13-134304-7.
14. In London Quarterly Review X/2 1813.;
cf. Szemerényi 1999:12, footnote 6
15. Franz Bopp (2010) [1816]. Über das
Conjugationssystem der
Sanskritsprache : in Vergleichung mit
jenem der griechischen, lateinischen,
persischen und germanischen
Sprache. Documenta Semiotica : Serie
1, Linguistik (2 ed.). Hildesheim: Olms.
16. Kurylowicz, Jerzy (1927). "ə indo-
européen et ḫ hittite". In Taszycki, W.;
Doroszewski, W. (eds.). Symbolae
grammaticae in honorem Ioannis
Rozwadowski. 1. pp. 95–104.
17. Elsie, Robert (2005). "Theodor of
Shkodra (1210) and Other Early Texts".
Albanian Literature: A Short History.
New York/Westport/London:
I.B.Tauris. p. 5.
18. In his latest book, Eric Hamp supports
the thesis that the Illyrian language
belongs to the Northwestern group,
that the Albanian language is
descended from Illyrian, and that
Albanian is related to Messapic which
is an earlier Illyrian dialect
(Comparative Studies on Albanian,
2007).
19. Curtis, Matthew Cowan (2011-11-30).
Slavic–Albanian Language Contact,
Convergence, and Coexistence .
ProQuest LLC. p. 18. ISBN 978-1-267-
58033-7. Retrieved 31 March 2017. "So
while linguists may debate about the
ties between Albanian and older
languages of the Balkans, and while
most Albanians may take the
genealogical connection to Illyrian as
incontrovertible, the fact remains that
there is simply insufficient evidence to
connect Illyrian, Thracian, or Dacian
with any language, including Albanian"
20. "The peaks and troughs of Hittite" .
www.leidenuniv.nl. 2 May 2006.
21. Güterbock, Hans G. "The Hittite
Computer Analysis Project" (PDF).
22. such as Schleicher 1861, Szemerényi
1957, Collinge 1985, and Beekes 1995
23. "Tablet Discovery Pushes Earliest
European Writing Back 150 Years" .
Science 2.0. 30 March 2011.
24. Indian History . Allied Publishers.
1988. p. 114. ISBN 978-81-8424-568-4.
25. Mark, Joshua J. (28 April 2011).
"Mitanni" . Ancient History
Encyclopedia.
26. David W. Anthony, "Two IE phylogenies,
three PIE migrations, and four kinds of
steppe pastoralism", Journal of
Language Relationship, vol. 9 (2013),
pp. 1–22
27. Kruta, Venceslas (1991). The Celts.
Thames and Hudson. p. 54.
28. Fine, John (1985). The ancient Greeks:
a critical history. Harvard University
Press. p. 72. ISBN 978-0-674-03314-6.
"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."
29. Michel Lejeune (1974), Manuel de la
langue vénète. Heidelberg:
Indogermanische Bibliothek, Lehr- und
Handbücher.
30. Julius Pokorny (1959),
Indogermanisches Etymologisches
Wörterbuch. Publisher Bern.
31. François, Alexandre (2014), "Trees,
Waves and Linkages: Models of
Language Diversification" (PDF), in
Bowern, Claire; Evans, Bethwyn (eds.),
The Routledge Handbook of Historical
Linguistics, London: Routledge,
pp. 161–89, ISBN 978-0-415-52789-7
32. Blažek, Václav (2007). "From August
Schleicher to Sergei Starostin: on the
development of the tree-diagram
models of the Indo-European
languages". Journal of Indo-European
Studies. 35 (1–2): 82–109.
33. Meillet, Antoine (1908). Les dialectes
indo-européens. Paris: Honoré
Champion.
34. Bonfante, Giuliano (1931). I dialetti
indoeuropei. Brescia: Paideia.
35. Porzig 1954.
36. Nakhleh, Luay; Ringe, Don & Warnow,
Tandy (2005). "Perfect Phylogenetic
Networks: A New Methodology for
Reconstructing the Evolutionary
History of Natural Languages" (PDF).
Language. 81 (2): 382–420.
CiteSeerX 10.1.1.65.1791 .
doi:10.1353/lan.2005.0078 .
37. Mallory, J.P.; Adams, D.Q. (1997).
Encyclopedia of Indo-European
Culture. London: Fitzroy Dearborn.
38. Porzig 1954, p. 39.
39. Fortson 2004, p. 247.
40. Watkins, Calvert (1966). "Italo-Celtic
revisited". In Birnbaum, Henrik; Puhvel,
Jaan (eds.). Ancient Indo-European
dialects. Berkeley: University of
California Press. pp. 29–50.
41. Weiss, Michael (2012). Jamison,
Stephanie W.; Melchert, H. Craig; Vine,
Brent (eds.). Italo-Celtica: linguistic
and cultural points of contact between
Italic and Celtic . Proceedings of the
23rd annual UCLA Indo-European
Conference. Bremen: Hempen.
pp. 151–73. ISBN 978-3-934106-99-4.
Retrieved 2018-02-19.
42. Greppin, James (1996). "Review of The
linguistic relationship between
Armenian and Greek by James
Clackson". Language. 72 (4): 804–07.
doi:10.2307/416105 . JSTOR 416105 .
43. Euler, Wolfram (1979). Indoiranisch-
griechische Gemeinsamkeiten der
Nominalbildung und deren
indogermanische Grundlagen.
Innsbruck: Institut für
Sprachwissenschaft der Universität
Innsbruck.
44. Lubotsky, A. (1988). "The Old Phrygian
Areyastis-inscription" (PDF). Kadmos.
27: 9–26. doi:10.1515/kadmos-1988-
0103 .
45. Kortlandt – The Thraco-Armenian
consonant shift, Linguistique
Balkanique 31, 71–74, 1988
46. Renfrew, Colin (1987). Archaeology &
Language. The Puzzle of the Indo-
European Origins. London: Jonathan
Cape. ISBN 978-0-224-02495-2.
47. Encyclopædia Britannica, vol.22, Helen
Hemingway Benton Publisher,
Chicago, (15th ed.) 1981, p. 593
48. George S. Lane, Douglas Q. Adams,
Britannica 15th edition 22:667, "The
Tocharian problem"
49. 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).
50. Britannica 15th edition, 22 p. 586
"Indo-European languages, The parent
language, Laryngeal theory" – W.C.;
pp. 589, 593 "Anatolian languages" –
Philo H.J. Houwink ten Cate, H. Craig
Melchert and Theo P.J. van den Hout
51. Britannica 15th edition, 22 p. 594,
"Indo-Hittite hypothesis"
52. 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. (eds.). 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."
53. Britannica 15th edition, vol.22, 1981,
pp. 588, 594
54. Kortlandt, Frederik (1989). "The spread
of the Indo-Europeans" (PDF).
Retrieved 2010-08-07.
55. Anthony 2007, pp. 56–58.
56. Ringe 2006, p. 67.
57. Anthony 2007, p. 100.
58. "Indo-European Languages: Balto-
Slavic Family" . Utexas.edu. 2008-11-
10. Archived from the original on
2011-06-04. Retrieved 2010-08-07.
59. Robert S.P. Beekes (2011).
Comparative Indo-European
Linguistics: An introduction. Second
edition . John Benjamins Publishing.
p. 30; Skt: 13, Hitt: 20, Gk: 24.
ISBN 978-90-272-8500-3.
60. Robert S.P. Beekes (2011).
Comparative Indo-European
Linguistics: An introduction. Second
edition . John Benjamins Publishing.
p. 30; Toch: 19, Arm: 20, Alb: 25, 124,
OIr: 27. ISBN 978-90-272-8500-3.
61. "Ethnologue list of language families"
(22th ed.). Ethnologue.com. Retrieved
2019-07-02.
62. "Ethnologue list of languages by
number of speakers" .
Ethnologue.com. Retrieved
2010-08-07.
 63. "English" . Ethnologue. Retrieved
January 17, 2017.
64. "Ten Things You Might Not Have
Known About the English Language" .
Oxford Dictionary. 2015-08-12.

Sources

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 978-
0-691-05887-0.
Auroux, Sylvain (2000). History of the
Language Sciences. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
ISBN 978-3-11-016735-1.
Fortson, Benjamin W. (2004). Indo-European
Language and Culture: An Introduction.
Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell.
ISBN 978-1-4051-0315-2.
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. (eds.). 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" (PDF). Journal of Indo-
European Studies. 18 (1–2): 131–40.
Lubotsky, A. (1988). "The Old Phrygian
Areyastis-inscription" (PDF). Kadmos. 27: 9–
26. doi:10.1515/kadmos-1988-0103 .
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.
Porzig, Walter (1954). Die Gliederung des
indogermanischen Sprachgebiets. Heidelberg:
Carl Winter Universitätsverlag.
Renfrew, C. (2001). "The Anatolian origins of
Proto-Indo-European and the autochthony of
the Hittites". In Drews, R. (ed.). Greater
Anatolia and the Indo-Hittite language family.
Washington, DC: Institute for the Study of
Man. ISBN 978-0-941694-77-3.
Schleicher, August (1861). Compendium der
vergleichenden Grammatik der
indogermanischen Sprachen (in German).
Weimar: Böhlau (reprinted by Minerva GmbH,
Wissenschaftlicher Verlag). ISBN 978-3-
8102-1071-5.
Szemerényi, Oswald; Jones, David; Jones,
Irene (1999). Introduction to Indo-European
Linguistics. Oxford University Press.
ISBN 978-0-19-823870-6.
von Bradke, Peter (1890). Über Methode und
Ergebnisse der arischen (indogermanischen)
 Alterthumswissenshaft (in German). Giessen:
J. Ricker'che Buchhandlung.

Further reading
Beekes, Robert S.P. (1995). Comparative
Indo-European Linguistics. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Chakrabarti, Byomkes (1994). A
comparative study of Santali and Bengali.
Calcutta: K.P. Bagchi & Co. ISBN 978-81-
7074-128-2.
Collinge, N.E. (1985). The Laws of Indo-
European . Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Mallory, J.P. (1989). In Search of the
Indo-Europeans . London: Thames and
Hudson. ISBN 978-0-500-27616-7.
Renfrew, Colin (1987). Archaeology &
Language. The Puzzle of the Indo-
European Origins. London: Jonathan
Cape. ISBN 978-0-224-02495-2.
Meillet, Antoine. Esquisse d'une
grammaire comparée de l'arménien
classique, 1903.
Ramat, Paolo; Ramat, Anna Giacalone
(1998). The Indo-European languages.
Routledge.
Schleicher, August, A Compendium of
the Comparative Grammar of the Indo-
European Languages (1861/62).
Strazny, Philip; Trask, R.L., eds. (2000).
Dictionary of Historical and Comparative
Linguistics (1 ed.). Routledge. ISBN 978-
1-57958-218-0.
Szemerényi, Oswald (1957). "The
problem of Balto-Slav unity". Kratylos. 2:
97–123.
Watkins, Calvert (2000). The American
Heritage Dictionary of Indo-European
Roots. Houghton Mifflin. ISBN 978-0-
618-08250-6.
 Remys, Edmund, General distinguishing
features of various Indo-European
languages and their relationship to
Lithuanian. Berlin, New York:
Indogermanische Forschungen, Vol.
112, 2007.
P. Chantraine (1968), Dictionnaire
étymologique de la langue grecque ,
Klincksieck, Paris.

External links

Wikimedia Commons has media

related to Indo-European languages.
 Wikinews has related news: New
research shows over 400 languages
originated in Turkey

Wikisource has the text of the 1911

Encyclopædia Britannica article Indo-
European Languages.

Databases

Dyen, Isidore; Kruskal, Joseph; Black,

Paul (1997). "Comparative Indo-
European" . wordgumbo. Retrieved
13 December 2009.
"Indo-European" . LLOW Languages of
the World. Retrieved 14 December 2009.
"Indo-European Documentation Center" .
Linguistics Research Center, University
of Texas at Austin. 2009. Archived from
the original on 3 September 2009.
Retrieved 14 December 2009.
Lewis, M. Paul, ed. (2009). "Language
Family Trees: Indo-European".
Ethnologue: Languages of the World,
Online version (Sixteenth ed.). Dallas,
Tex.: SIL International..
"Thesaurus Indogermanischer Text- und
Sprachmaterialien: TITUS" (in German).
 TITUS, University of Frankfurt. 2003.
Retrieved 13 December 2009.
"Indo-European Lexical Cognacy
Database (IELex)" . Max Planck Institute
for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen.

Lexica

"Indo-European Etymological Dictionary

(IEED)" . Leiden, Netherlands:
Department of Comparative Indo-
European Linguistics, Leiden University.
Archived from the original on 7
February 2006. Retrieved 14 December
2009.
"Indo-European Roots Index" . The
American Heritage Dictionary of the
English Language (Fourth ed.). Internet
Archive: Wayback Machine. August 22,
2008 [2000]. Archived from the original
on February 17, 2009. Retrieved
9 December 2009.
Köbler, Gerhard (2014).
Indogermanisches Wörterbuch (in
German) (5th ed.). Gerhard Köbler.
Retrieved 29 March 2015.
Schalin, Johan (2009). "Lexicon of Early
Indo-European Loanwords Preserved in
 Finnish" . Johan Schalin. Retrieved
9 December 2009.

Retrieved from
"https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indo-
European_languages&oldid=928830578"

Last edited 9 hours ago by Uanfala

Content is available under CC BY-SA 3.0 unless

otherwise noted.