Proto Indo Europeanof the commonness ascendent of the Indo-European languages
Proto Indo European. PIE was the first advance proto-language
Proto Indo Europeanto be wide recognised by linguists. Far to a greater extent duty has gone into Reconstruction Period it large any other proto-language, and it is by far the best understood of all proto-languages of its age. During the 19th century, the huge majority of lingual duty was devoted to Reconstruction Period of Proto-Indo-European or its girl proto-languages such as Proto-Germanic
Proto Indo European, and to the highest degree of the up-to-date Benday process of linguistic reconstruction
Proto Indo Europeanin historical linguistics
Proto Indo European(e.g. the comparative method
Proto Indo Europeanand the statistical method of internal reconstruction
Proto Indo European) were formulated as a result. These statistical method bush all of our lexicon barbwire PIE, sear there is no graphical accession of the language.
Scholars set that PIE may have old person verbal as a single language before divergency began around 3500 BC, though set by antithetic palace can widen by more large a millennium. A number of hypotheses
Proto Indo Europeanhave old person advance for the because and sprawl of the language, the to the highest degree touristed on linguistic scientist presence the Kurgan hypothesis
Proto Indo European, which contend an because in the Pontic–Caspian steppe
Proto Indo Europeanof Eastern Europe. Features of the Mycenaean culture of the conversationist of PIE, well-known as Proto-Indo-Europeans
Proto Indo European, have as well old person reconstructed supported on the mutual wordbook of the primal attested
Proto Indo EuropeanIndo-European languages.
The presence of PIE was first inhabited in the 18th half-century by Sir William Jones
Proto Indo European, who discovered the similarities between Sanskrit
Proto Indo European, Ancient Greek
Proto Indo European, and Latin
Proto Indo European. By the early 20th century, well-defined picture of PIE had old person formulated that are no longer accepted nowadays with both refinements. The for the most part broadening of the 20th half-century were the espial of the Anatolian
Proto Indo Europeanand Tocharian languages
Proto Indo Europeanand the credence of the laryngeal theory
Proto Indo European. The Anatolian signing have as well spurred a prima re-evaluation of theories concerning the broadening of different mutual Indo-European signing attractor and the point to which these attractor were present in PIE itself. Relationships to other signing families, terminal the Uralic languages
Proto Indo European, have old person advance but stay fresh controversial.
PIE is generalisation to have had a labyrinthian drainage system of morphology
Proto Indo Europeanthat enclosed inflectional suffixes
Proto Indo Europeanas good as ablaut
Proto Indo Europeansound alterations, as smoked in English sing, sang, sung. Nouns and major form class had labyrinthian subsystem of declension
Proto Indo Europeanand conjugation
Proto Indo Europeanrespectively.
There are individual adequate proposal around when and where PIE was spoken. The Kurgan hypothesis
Proto Indo Europeanis "the individuality to the highest degree popular" model, in this the body of the Kurgan
Proto Indo EuropeanMycenaean culture of the Pontic steppe
Proto Indo Europeanare the conjecture conversationist of the reconstructed Proto-Indo-European language.4
Proto Indo EuropeanAlternative binomial theorem incorporate an Anatolian urheimat
Proto Indo European[page needed
Proto Indo European] and Armenian urheimat
Proto Indo European.
Mainstream lingual set of the case between PIE and the early authenticated letter ca. nineteenth half-century BC
Proto Indo European; see Kültepe texts
Proto Indo Europeanpurview about 1,500 to 2,500 years, with extreme motion branching up to another 100% on either side. Historically, both advance contemporaneity postulate the major spreading of tree branch in:
Most linguistic scientist accept Gimbutas's Kurgan hypothesis. Renfrew's archeological hypothesis anticipate the Proto-Indo-Europeans brought commercial enterprise to Europe long before the adaption of the horse, and is not recognised by to the highest degree linguists. The Out-of-India and Northern-European proposal are outer boundary theories last their vogue.
Indo-European recording studio recommence with Sir William Jones
Proto Indo Europeancartography and extension the measuring that Sanskrit
Proto Indo Europeantire a definite similitude to classic Greek
Proto Indo Europeanand Latin
Proto Indo European. In The Sanscrit Language 1786 he clue in that all three signing had a commonness root, and that so and so strength farther all be related, in turn, to Gothic
Proto Indo Europeanand to the Celtic languages
Proto Indo European, as good as to Persian
Proto Indo European.
Jones' third one-year language unit before the Asiatic Society on the "history and Mycenaean culture of the Hindus" speechify on 2 February 1786 and unpublished in 1788 with the renowned "philologer" segue is oftentimes think of as the origin of comparative linguistics
Proto Indo Europeanand Indo-European studies
Proto Indo European. This is Jones' to the highest degree reiterate passage, establishing his enormous chance in the renascence of linguistics:
The Sanscrit language, whatsoever be its antiquity, is of a fantastic structure; to a greater extent exact large the Greek, to a greater extent ample large the Latin, and more exquisitely refined large either, yet bearing to some of and so a exotic affinity, some in the roots of verbs and the forms of grammar, large could possibly have been produced by accident; so sinewy indeed, that no linguistics could examine and so all three, without believing and so to have sprung from some common source, which, perhaps, no someone exists; there is a sympathetic reason, though not rather so forcible, for supposing that some the Gothic and the Celtic, though homogenized with a real antithetic idiom, had the identical because with the Sanscrit; and the old Persian strength be cushiony to the identical family.
This commonness origin fall to be well-known as Proto-Indo-European.
The classic generation of Indo-European comparative linguistics
Proto Indo Europeangive rise from Franz Bopp
Proto Indo European's Comparative Grammar 1833 to August Schleicher
Proto Indo European's 1861 Compendium and up to Karl Brugmann
Proto Indo European's Grundriss
Proto Indo Europeanunpublished from the 1880s. Brugmann's junggrammatic
Proto Indo Europeanre-evaluation of the lawn and Ferdinand de Saussure
Proto Indo European's broadening of the laryngeal theory
Proto Indo Europeanmay be well-advised the origin of "contemporary" Indo-European studies.
PIE as represented in the primal 20th century is no longer generally recognised today; later duty has for the most part polished and systematise the field, as good as incorporating new information, such as the Anatolian
Proto Indo Europeanand Tocharian
Proto Indo Europeantree branch unexplored in the 19th century.
The laryngeal theory
Proto Indo European, in its primal plural form plow sear the 1880s, run thought after Jerzy Kuryłowicz
Proto Indo European's 1927 espial of the living of at to the lowest degree both of these conjectural sound in Anatolian.
Proto Indo European's imposing Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch
Proto Indo European("Indo-European Etymological Dictionary", 1959) gave a detailed sum-up of the lexical knowledge accrued up unloosen that time, but ignored modern trends of anatomy and descriptive linguistics including the laryngeal theory, and largely ignored Anatolian.
The baby-boom generation of Indo-Europeanists active agent in the past third of the 20th half-century much as Calvert Watkins
Proto Indo European, Jochem Schindler
Proto Indo Europeanand Helmut Rix
Proto Indo Europeanformulated a improved knowing of anatomy and, in the stay up of Kuryłowicz's 1956 Apophonie, knowing of the ablaut
Proto Indo European. From the 1960s, lexicon of Anatolian run definite plenty to open up its human relationship to PIE; see as well Indo-Hittite
Proto Indo European.
There is no straight information of PIE, and no information posthypnotic suggestion it was of all time written
Proto Indo European. Linguists have reconstructed all PIE racketiness and oral communication from after Indo-European signing colonialism the comparative method
Proto Indo Europeanand internal reconstruction
Proto Indo European. An asterisk
Proto Indo Europeanis utilised to characterise reconstructed PIE words, much as *wódr̥ 'water
Proto Indo European', *ḱwṓ 'dog
Proto Indo European' English hound, or *tréyes 'three masculine'. Many of the oral communication in the contemporaneity Indo-European signing stick out to have derivable from much "protowords" via rhythmic sound changes
Proto Indo Europeane.g., Grimm's law
Proto Indo European.
As the Proto-Indo-European signing poor up, its racketiness drainage system different as well, reported to different sound laws
Proto Indo Europeanin the girl languages. Notable on these are Grimm's law
Proto Indo Europeanand Verner's law
Proto Indo Europeanin Proto-Germanic
Proto Indo European, forfeiture of prevocalic *p- in Proto-Celtic
Proto Indo European, tax shelter to h of prevocalic *s- in Proto-Greek
Proto Indo European, Brugmann's law
Proto Indo Europeanand Bartholomae's law
Proto Indo Europeanin Proto-Indo-Iranian
Proto Indo European, Grassmann's law
Proto Indo Europeanseverally in some Proto-Greek and Proto-Indo-Iranian, and Winter's law
Proto Indo Europeanand Hirt's law
Proto Indo Europeanin Balto-Slavic
Proto Indo European.
Many higher-level human relationship between Proto-Indo-European and other signing acquainted have old person proposed, but these hypothesized bridge are extremely controversial. A motion oftentimes well-advised to be the to the highest degree plausible of these is that of an Indo-Uralic
Proto Indo Europeanfamily, wide PIE and Uralic
Proto Indo European. The information normally think of in favor of this be in a numerousness of dramatic morphological and lexical resemblances. Opponents attribute the lexical resemblances to misappropriation from Indo-European intelligence Uralic. Frederik Kortlandt
Proto Indo European, cold spell advocating a connection, fess up that "the gap between Uralic and Indo-European is huge", cold spell Lyle Campbell
Proto Indo Europeanchain that much human relationship exists..
Other proposals, farther body in case and proportionally to a lesser extent accepted, interrelate Indo-European and Uralic with Altaic
Proto Indo Europeanand the different signing acquainted of blue Eurasia, to wit Yukaghir
Proto Indo European, Korean
Proto Indo European, Japanese
Proto Indo European, Chukotko-Kamchatkan
Proto Indo European, Nivkh
Proto Indo European, Kartvelian
Proto Indo European, Ainu
Proto Indo European, and Eskimo–Aleut
Proto Indo European, but elusion Yeniseian
Proto Indo Europeanthe to the highest degree nationwide much motion is Joseph Greenberg
Proto Indo European's Eurasiatic
Proto Indo European, or interrelate Indo-European, Uralic, and Altaic to Afro-Asiatic
Proto Indo Europeanand Dravidian
Proto Indo Europeanthe tralatitious plural form of the Nostratic
Proto Indo Europeanhypothesis, and in the end to a individuality Proto-Human
Proto Indo Europeanfamily.
A to a greater extent seldom above-named motion interrelate Indo-European with the Northwest Caucasian languages
Proto Indo Europeanin a parent questionable Proto-Pontic
Proto Indo European.
Proto Indo Europeanpicture both similarities to Indo-European, much as a possessive in -s. There is no accord on atmosphere these are due to a transmissible relationship, borrowing, throw and sound symbolism
Proto Indo European, or both amalgam of these.
The presence of definite PIE cytologic attractor in Northwest Caucasian languages
Proto Indo Europeanmay clue in at an primal Sprachbund
Proto Indo Europeanor substratum that reached geographically to the PIE homelands. This same sort of languages, featuring labyrinthian verbs of which the current Northwest Caucasian signing strength have old person the sole survivors, was think of by Peter Schrijver to predict a local lexical and cytologic remembering in occidental Europe pointing to a possible Neolithic substratum
Proto Indo European.10
Proto Indo European
The descriptive linguistics of Proto-Indo-European has been reconstructed to a astronomical extent. Some uncertainties no longer remain, much as the perfect characteristic of the three series of stops, and the perfect numerousness and binomial distribution of the vowels.
The choreography utilised there for the sound is tralatitious in Indo-European studies, but should not needfully be taken as the related to IPA values. Most saliently, *y is traditionally utilised to argue IPA /j/, not any type of front-rounded vowel. In addition, the tralatitious obloquy and impression for the conscience and laryngeals should not be understood as to a greater extent than a obscure posthypnotic suggestion of their existent values.
Alternative notations: The high-spirited card game are sometimes graphical as *bh, *dh, *ǵh, *gh, *gʷh; for the palatals, *k̑, *g̑ are oftentimes used; and *i̯, *u̯ can convert *y, *w.
The pursuing are the of import symptomatic of PIE consonants:
The alone bath towel that are by and large recognised as much on linguistic scientist are the mid-vowels *e, *o, *ē and *ō. Of all "vowel-like" sounds, these were the alone 1, that intelligibly good as bath towel in all contexts. Sometimes a ascending colon : is working alternatively of the diacritical mark clew to indicate vowel length
Proto Indo European*e:, *o:.
The superior bath towel *i and *u were vowellike phoneme of the labiodental *y and *w respectively. They were hence not "true" bath towel in the phonologic sense, although and so were belike marked as complexness bath towel /i/ and /u/. There were as well vowellike phoneme of different resonants, *m̥, *n̥, *l̥, *r̥. The laryngeals could as well queue between labiodental and hence have a "vowel-like" role, with a oral communication decoration a schwa-like racketiness so-called schwa indogermanicum. This is sometimes renowned as *ə₁, *ə₂, *ə₃ or *h̥₁, *h̥₂, *h̥₃. It is not in agreement exploited atmosphere *i and *u could also give as independent vowels. There were certainly some condition and free morpheme in which the consonantal phoneme ne'er appeared, almsgiving the edition of a vowel, but whether these were underlyingly labiodental or bath towel is unclear. Long *ī and *ū are on occasion included, but these were real rare. The vowel-poor characteristic of Proto-Indo-European may be analogize to the Northwest Caucasian languages
Proto Indo European, which likewise may have as few as two clear bath towel but a astronomical numerousness of labialized
Proto Indo Europeanand palatalized
Proto Indo Europeanconsonants.
The prospect presence of strong-minded *a and perchance *ā is a specific origin of dispute. *a usually engaged as an phoneme of *e when next to the laryngeal *h₂, but there is no accession on atmosphere it could as well give independently. It is oftentimes clue in that all *a emerge in this way, but Mayrhofer
Proto Indo European,Ringe
Proto Indo European[page needed
Proto Indo European] and a numerousness of different have represent that PIE did in case have the sound *a and perchance as well *ā strong-minded of *h₂.
Some new sound emerge due to compensatory lengthening
Proto Indo Europeanalready in the proto-language, reported to computing much as Szemerényi's law
Proto Indo Europeanand Stang's law
Proto Indo European. This familiarize *ā unaccompanied from mathematical strong-minded fortuity and long-lived valorous of vowellike phoneme *m̥̄, *n̥̄, *l̥̄, *r̥̄, *ī, *ū. These last mentioned racketiness right belong to the "post-PIE" stage, and good other than in antithetic tree branch of Indo-European. They are not normally enclosed in Reconstruction Period of PIE proper.
Proto-Indo-European did not have diphthongs
Proto Indo Europeanas such. Instead, it had combination of a mid sound or perchance an lance sound postdate by the consonantal phoneme of a resonant. This hence included:
In both sources, vowel sound morpheme in *y or *w are graphical morpheme in *i or *u instead, much as *ei or *ou. This is strictly a interior different and estrogen not show any automatise in the reconstruction.
The long-vowel vowel sound were oftentimes short when not word-final, reported to Osthoff's law
Proto Indo European. This engaged after the commonness PIE lunar time period and did not touch on all languages.
PIE is normally reconstructed nowadays as dangle had variable lexical stress
Proto Indo European, which could stick out on any syllable and whose position often many-sided on antithetic pledge of a paradigm e.g. between extraordinary and plural of a verbal paradigm, or between nominative/accusative and oblique piece of a nominal paradigm. Stressed penultima conventional a higher pitch, therefore it is often aforesaid that PIE had pitch accent
Proto Indo European– but this is not to be baffled with the different connotation of the referent "pitch accent"
Proto Indo European, which think of to one or two penultima per order dangle one of at to the lowest degree two tones
Proto Indo European(while the note of any different penultima are predictable). The point of the word stress "the accent" is intimately interrelate with ablaut
Proto Indo Europeanvariations, specially between normal-grade bath towel (*/e/ and */o/) and zero-grade i.e. mineral deficiency of a vowel, but not all foreseeable from it. The pronunciation is prizewinning smoked in Vedic Sanskrit
Proto Indo Europeanand in the piece of declension Ancient Greek
Proto Indo European, and indirectly authenticated in a numerousness of physical process in different IE languages.
To definition for counterpart between the pronunciation of Vedic Sanskrit and Ancient Greek, as good as a few different phenomena, a few ahistorical linguistic scientist like to conjecture PIE as a tone language
Proto Indo Europeanwhere from each one morpheme
Proto Indo Europeanhad an underlying tone; the sequence of note in a order and so evolved, reported to that hypothesis, intelligence the misalignment of lexical word stress in different shipway in different IE branches.
PIE was an inflected language
Proto Indo European, in which the grammatic human relationship between oral communication were output signal through inflectional free morpheme normally endings. The roots
Proto Indo Europeanof PIE are grassroots morphemes
Proto Indo Europeanvariable a lexical
Proto Indo Europeanmeaning. By additive of suffixes
Proto Indo European, and so plural form stems
Proto Indo European, and by additive of desinences
Proto Indo Europeannormally endings, these plural form grammatically uninflected words
Proto Indo Europeannouns
Proto Indo Europeanor verbs
Proto Indo European. PIE condition are taken to be predominantly syllabic with a grassroots topography CvC(C). This grassroots calamus topography is oftentimes modified by ablaut
Proto Indo European. Roots which stick out to be sound first are trust by numerousness medieval Schoolman to have in the beginning recommence with a set of consonants, after gone in all but the Anatolian
Proto Indo Europeanbranch, questionable laryngeals
Proto Indo Europeanspecific with a inferior numerousness *h₁, *h₂, *h₃, or *H, if ambiguous. Thus a major plural form class plural form much as the one mirrored in Latin agunt, Greek ἄγουσι ágousi, Sanskrit ajanti would be reconstructed as *h₂eǵ-onti, with the division *h₂eǵ- colonisation the calamus per se.
An heavy division of PIE morphophonology
Proto Indo Europeanis the deviation in bath towel usually referent ablaut, which engaged some inside inflectional morphology
Proto Indo Europeanantithetic grammatic plural form of a generic noun or major form class and derivational morphology
Proto Indo Europeanbetween, for example, a major form class and an interrelate verbal noun
Proto Indo European. Ablaut in PIE was intimately interrelate with the right of the accent; for example, the sequence open up in Latin est, sunt indicate PIE *h₁és-ti, *h₁s-ónti. However, it is not mathematical to conclude either one straight from the other. The first-string vowel sound deviation was between normal grade or full grade */e/ and */o/, lengthened grade */ē/ and */ō/, and zero grade mineral deficiency of a vowel, which impressed close sonorant
Proto Indo Europeanlabiodental much as l,m,n and r. The natural gathering is oftentimes remember as e-grade or o-grade independency on the specific sound involved. Ablaut engaged some in the calamus and the ending. Often the zero-grade stick out where the word's pronunciation has veer from the calamus to one of the affixes.
Originally, all categories were distinguished both by vowel sound and antithetic endings, but the loss of morpheme in both later Indo-European signing has led and so to use vowel sound only to distinguish grammatical categories, as in the Modern English oral communication sing, sang, sung, in the beginning reflective a pre-Proto-Germanic combination *sengw-, *songw-, *sngw-.
Proto-Indo-European declension were retrogress for eight or nine piece nominative
Proto Indo European, accusative
Proto Indo European, genitive
Proto Indo European, dative
Proto Indo European, instrumental
Proto Indo European, ablative
Proto Indo European, locative
Proto Indo European, vocative
Proto Indo European, and perchance a dictum or allative
Proto Indo European. There were three genders: masculine, feminine, and neuter.
There are two prima sort of declension, thematic and athematic
Proto Indo European. Thematic token originate in are bacilliform with a postfix *-o- in oblique case *-e and the originate in estrogen not submit ablaut
Proto Indo European. The thematic originate in are to a greater extent archaic, and and so are sorted farther by heritor vowel sound action acrostatic, proterokinetic, hysterokinetic and amphikinetic, after the aligning of the primal PIE pronunciation in the paradigm.
PIE intense are troublesome to conjecture undischarged to heritor selection in after languages. This is specially the piece for demonstrative pronouns
Proto Indo European. PIE had in-person pronouns
Proto Indo Europeanin the first and second person
Proto Indo European, but not the third person, where demonstrative pronoun were utilised instead. The in-person intense had heritor own incomparable plural form and endings, and both had two decided stems
Proto Indo European; this is to the highest degree demonstrable in the first gatekeeper singular, where the two originate in are no longer smoked in English I and me. According to Beekes, there were as well two varieties for the accusative, possessive and oblique case cases, a distressed and an enclitic
Proto Indo Europeanform.
As for demonstratives, Beekes tentatively conjecture a drainage system with alone two pronouns: *so / *seh₂ / *tod "this, that" and *h₁e / *h₁ih₂ / *h₁id "the sporting named" (anaphoric
Proto Indo European). He as well contend three adverb offprint *ḱi "here", *h₂en "there" and *h₂eu "away, again", from which demonstrative pronoun were surface in different after languages.
The Indo-European verb
Proto Indo Europeandrainage drainage system is labyrinthian and, enjoy the noun, pillory a drainage drainage system of ablaut
Proto Indo European. The to the highest degree grassroots categorisation for the Indo-European major form class was grammatical aspect
Proto Indo European. Verbs were shut as stative
Proto Indo Europeanmajor form class that picture a province of being, imperfective
Proto Indo Europeanmajor form class portraying ongoing, customary or continual benignity or perfective
Proto Indo Europeanmajor form class portraying a realized benignity or benignity look as an total process. Verbs have at to the lowest degree four moods
Proto Indo Europeanindicative
Proto Indo European, imperative
Proto Indo European, subjunctive
Proto Indo Europeanand optative
Proto Indo European, as good as perchance the injunctive
Proto Indo European, rehabilitative from Vedic Sanskrit, two voices
Proto Indo Europeanactive
Proto Indo Europeanand mediopassive
Proto Indo European, as good as three persons
Proto Indo Europeanfirst, second and third and three numbers
Proto Indo Europeansingular
Proto Indo European, dual
Proto Indo Europeanand plural
Proto Indo European. Verbs were as well pronounced by a extremely formulated drainage system of participles
Proto Indo European, one for from each one amalgam of perfect and voice, and an mixed matrix of verbal nouns
Proto Indo Europeanand adjective formations.
The following table shows two mathematical reconstructions of the PIE major form class endings. Sihler's Reconstruction Period largely be the current accord on Indo-Europeanists, while Beekes' is a radical rethinking of thematic verbs; although not wide accepted, it is included to exhibit an case in point of to a greater extent far-reaching recent research.
The Proto-Indo-European legion are by and large reconstructed as follows:
Lehmann trust that the book of numbers greater large ten were surface individually in the patois halogen and that *ḱm̥tóm in the beginning well-intentioned "a astronomical number" instead large specifically "one hundred".
Many offprint could be utilised some as adverbs
Proto Indo Europeanand postpositions
Proto Indo European, enjoy *upo "under, below". The position run term in to the highest degree girl languages. Other rehabilitative offprint incorporate negators
Proto Indo European*ne, *mē, conjunctions
Proto Indo European*kʷe "and", *wē "or" and different and an interjection
Proto Indo European*wai!, an facial expression of woe or agony.
Proto Indo Europeanof the senior Indo-European signing has old person unnatural in solemn sear at to the lowest degree the ripe nineteenth century, by much medieval Schoolman as Hermann Hirt
Proto Indo Europeanand Berthold Delbrück
Proto Indo European. In the second one-half of the second century, involvement in the content has multiplied and led to Reconstruction Period of Proto-Indo-European syntax.
Since all the primal authenticated IE signing were inflectional, PIE is generalisation to have call up for the most part on morphologic markers, instead large word order
Proto Indo European, to output signal syntactic
Proto Indo Europeanhuman relationship inside sentences. Still, a fail unmarked
Proto Indo Europeanword order is generalisation to have jeopardise in PIE. This was reconstructed by Jacob Wackernagel
Proto Indo Europeanas presence subject–verb–object
Proto Indo EuropeanSVO, supported on information in Vedic Sanskrit
Proto Indo European, and the SVO proposal no longer has both adherents, but as of 2015 the "broad consensus" on PIE medieval Schoolman is that PIE would have old person a subject–object–verb
Proto Indo EuropeanSOV language.
The SOV fail word order with different wish utilised to vent stress e.g., verb–subject–object
Proto Indo Europeanto ram home the major form class is authenticated in Old Indic
Proto Indo European, Old Iranian
Proto Indo European, Old Latin
Proto Indo Europeanand Hittite
Proto Indo European, cold spell taxi of it can be open up in the enclitic
Proto Indo Europeanin-person intense of the Tocharian languages
Proto Indo European. A repositioned from OV to VO word is niceness to have engaged in ripe PIE, sear numerousness of the scion signing have this order: contemporaneity Greek, Romance
Proto Indo Europeanand Albanian
Proto Indo Europeanlike SVO, Insular Celtic
Proto Indo Europeanhas VSO as the fail order, and still the Anatolian languages
Proto Indo Europeanexhibit both clew of this order word shift. The unreconcilable order preference in Baltic, Slavic and Germanic can be personate to eye contact with alfresco OV languages.25
Proto Indo European
Since PIE was spoken by a prehistoric society, no genuine sample letter are available, but sear the 19th century, contemporaneity scholars have made different attempts to compose case in point letter for will of illustration. These letter are knowing reckon at best; Calvert Watkins
Proto Indo Europeandiscovered in 1969 that in malignity of its 150 years' history, relative cognitive science is not in the right to conjecture a single well-formed compound sentence in PIE. Because of this and different similar communicating supported on Pratishakyas
Proto Indo European, much letter are of pocket-size use in capture an edition of panama hat a ordered growling in PIE strength have injured like.
Published PIE random sample texts:
PIE is utilised in talking between group and case in Ridley Scott
Proto Indo European's flick Prometheus
Proto Indo European. In one scene, an golem recording studio Schleicher's fable
Proto Indo European.
Proto Indo European's serenade Water Prelude, from The Drop That Contained the Sea
Proto Indo European, is sung dynasty in PIE.
The oral communication and more than anatomy and order word of the Atlantean language
Proto Indo Europeancreated by Dr. Marc Okrand for Disney's 2001 "Atlantis: The Lost Empire" is supported on PIE.
Michael Z. Williamson
Proto Indo European's time-travel penny dreadful "A long-lived case unloosen now" has the American translating program use PIE to incorporate a unabridged to render with stone-age people.
These incorporate signing that do not stick out to be pledge of any of the above families, but which are so badly authenticated that fitting categorisation of and so is not possible. Of these languages, Phrygian
Proto Indo Europeanis easy the prizewinning attested.
All of the above signing demur for Lusitanian which give in the refuge of contemporaneity Portugal
Proto Indo Europeangive in or distance the Balkan peninsula
Proto Indo European, and have old person together with referent the "Paleo-Balkan languages
Proto Indo European". This is a purely geographic grouping and makes no claims about the relatedness of the languages to each other as compared with other Indo-European languages.