Indo-European Languages

"PIE" redirects here. It should not be confused with pies of the baking variety

Present-day distribution of Indo-European languages in Eurasia, with major divisions:

  Albanian

  Armenian

  Baltic (East)

  Slavic

  Celtic (Brittonic and Goidelic languages)

  Germanic (North and West)

  Greek

  Iranian (or Iranic)

  Indo-Aryan (or Indic)

  Nuristani

  Italic (Romance)

  Non-Indo-European languages

We control what you think with Language

Said and done

Hebrew Novlangue Everyone is racist Grok Theorum Stovepiping

Jargon, buzzwords, slogans

Anti-intellectualism Mass immigration IBGYBG Indian alt-right glossary Ideological patrolling Gang v - t - e

The Indo-European languages are a widely distributed family of languages, all descended from a hypothetical and partially reconstructable ancestor, the Proto-Indo-European (PIE) language.^{[note 1]} Languages of this family, native to Eurasia, were spoken in historical times from Norway, Portugal and Iceland to Maldives, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. They have spread by colonialism to become the dominant languages of North America, South America and Australia, and are widely present in Africa as well.

Despite at first seeming like a boring etymological subject, in truth this topic has has always been extremely politicized, particularly in what the "Proto-Indo-Europeans" looked like, their social structure, and their homeland.

Older, mostly abandoned, terms for the family include Indo-Germanic,^[1]:2 and Aryan.^{[note 2]}

Why this?[edit]

Despite being what would at first seem a dry etymological subject, the study of Indo-European languages has been repeatedly politicized, and would often be presented with the false pretense that the Proto-Indo-Europeans were light-skinned, had blonde hair and blue eyes (In actuality, they never looked like that!). In the period after World War II, several Indo-European scholars (such as Roger Pearson, Jean Haudry and the influential Georges Dumézil)^{[2]:2, 3, 241 ff., 306} and writers influenced by Indo-European studies (e.g. Alain de Benoist) were accused of having sympathies for fascism or Nazism. It was alleged that their political beliefs may have influenced their studies.^[2][3] Stefan Arvidsson speculated that the fact that many Indo-European scholars identify themselves as the descendants of the ancient Indo-Europeans may explain why the field of Indo-European studies has also been ideologically abused.^{[2]:3, 308, 320} David Anthony remarked that the Indo-European linguistics and archaeology have been exploited to support openly ideological agendas for so long that a brief history of the issue quickly becomes entangled with the intellectual history of Europe.^{[4][note 3]}

Their startling discovery[edit]

A variety of writers had observed that languages such as Russian appeared to be related to Greek and Latin; Mikhail Lomonosov noted the similarities between Russian, Greek, Latin, and the Baltic ("Courlandic" or "Kurlandic") languages in his 1755 Russian Grammar, inviting us to "[i]magine 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!" But it was Sir William Jones, a British judge stationed in India, who noticed the strong similarity between Sanskrit and Classical Greek:^[5]:5

“”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; there 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[sic]; and the old Persian might be added to the same family.

It was, in fact, quite startling for white Britons to discover that brown "heathens" were speaking a language closely akin to Ancient Greek. British attitudes towards India and its culture during the colonial period tended towards two extremes. Indophilia was manifest in orientalist art, architecture, and painting; Johann Wolfgang von Goethe and Ralph Waldo Emerson were both familiar with the Bhagavad Gita. There was also Indophobia, associated with evangelical Christianity; Thomas Babington Macaulay dismissed Sanskrit literature as:

As another example of such condescension, William Jones, in the famous speech in which he proposed the genetic relatedness of the Indo-European languages, also said,

“”Their sources of wealth are still abundant even after so many revolutions and conquests; in their manufactures of cotton they still surpass all the world; and their features have, most probably, remained unaltered since the time of Dionysius[sic]; nor can we reasonably doubt, how degenerate and abased so ever the Hindus may now appear, that in some early age they were splendid in art and arms, happy in government, wise in legislation, and eminent in various knowledge.

Thus, with such ideas, evangelical Christians are hardly in a position to criticize.

Subfamilies[edit]

Major[edit]

• Albanian - A language primarily spoken in Albania, intuitively enough, with significant minorities in other Southern European countries. It possesses some similarities to Greek and has many Turkish loanwords due to Albania being part of Turkey or Greek in various points of its history.
• Anatolian - Now extinct, this was the language family of the Hittite people. Hittite is the oldest attested Indo-European language and lacks some grammatical features more common in its cousins.
• Armenian - An independent branch of the IE languages, which is spoken in Armenia in two primary dialects and has significant minorities in Lebanon, Russia, Georgia, Iran, and Turkey. It has been proposed that it is related closely enough to Greek that they should be placed together in the Graeco-Armenian family, but this theory is currently not widely accepted.
• Balto-Slavic - The surviving Baltic languages are now Latvian and Lithuanian, the latter of which is notable for its extreme conservatism in the language. Slavic languages are much larger and include Russian, Ukrainian, Czech, Serbo-Croatian (Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, etc.), and many others.
• Celtic - Once the largest spoken language family in Europe. On the continent it was first displaced by Latin from the Romans and later in the British Isles various dialects of English from the Germanics. Notable examples include Breton, Scottish, Irish, Welsh, and Cornish.
• Germanic - This is the family that includes English, German, Dutch, Afrikaans, Icelandic, and Nordic (the primary languages of Scandinavia: Danish, Swedish, and Norwegian; except for Finnish, which is an Uralic language). Germanic languages are distinct because of Grimm's Law which explains certain sound changes making them distinct from other Indo-European languages. Additionally, they may have a substrate of an unknown language which displaced some more traditional Indo-European words in Proto-Germanic.
• Hellenic - The language family to which Greek belongs to. It also includes a few smaller and more obscure languages, most extinct.
• Indo-Iranian - Sometimes simply known as Aryan (also includes Nuristani), the various languages of India (broadly Indian subcontinent vis-à-vis South Asia) and Iran (broadly including Azerbaijan, Kurdistan, Tajikistan, northwestern Afghanistan, southern Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan). Sanskrit, Prakrit, Persian, Avestan, and its descendants are part of this group.
• Italic - A group of languages native to pre-Roman Italy including various extinct languages and Latin, the language of Rome. This category also includes modern languages such as Italians, French, Spanish, Portuguese, and Romanian, all of which descend from the common Vulgar Latin dialect which later gave rise to these languages, referred to as the Romance Languages.
• Tocharian/Tokharian - A now-extinct language family spoken by the Tocharians/Tokharians in what is now Xinjiang/Uyghuristan/East Turkestan (present-day northwestern China).

Obscure[edit]

There are some small, little-known, and extinct families in Indo-European as well. Many of these are known exclusively from small, short texts or personal/place names.

• Illyrian — A fairly unknown ancient language family spoken in the Balkans, now extinct.^{[7]:405-6[8]:166}
• Lusitanian — A language formerly spoken in ancient Iberia.^[7]:408-9
• Liburnian — A language that may be part of the Illyrian family or a member of the Italic family by way of Venetic.^{[8]:179-80, 183}
• Messapian — A language which used to be spoken in Southeastern Italy, with records dating from the 6th to 1st century BCE. Possibly related to Illyrian.^[7]:407-8
• Paeonian — Another Balkan language with few records. It has been variously argued to be its own branch or a member of the Hellenic, Thracian, or Illyrian branches.^[8]:116-20
• Phrygian — A relatively more attested language. Either in a supergrouping with Hellenic or an independent branch.^[7]:401-4
• Sicel — A language spoken in Sicily. Possibly not a member of the Italic languages, an independent language, or non-Indo-European.^[7]:269
• Dacian - An extinct language spoken in Thrace, the region that now comprises Bulgaria and the European part of Turkey.
• Thracian — An extinct language spoken around the Thrace region of Europe and extending as far as Anatolia and Romania. Possibly related to Indo-Iranian.^[7]:404

Relationships within the Indo-European family[edit]

It is an interesting fact that the Germanic languages on the one hand and the Balto-Slavic languages on the other are believed to be more closely related to one another than either group is to anything else.^[9] The reasons for this are of course technical details in the inflection of those language groups, but the Austrian Corporal with the mustache seems to have been unaware of this. Yet, he mentioned languages as parts of "race". That notion — of associating language with the nebulous concept of race — is of course pure drivel, but still, somebody should have pointed this out to him. By the way, this relatedness should put the final nail in the coffin of the obsolete centum-satem division. Germanic languages are centum, and Balto-Slavic languages are satem. The centum-satem division is named for the Latin word for 100 (centum) and the same word in the Avestan language (as 𐬯𐬀𐬙𐬆𐬨 satəm) which for a long time was believed to mirror an ancient division or at the least dialect continuum in the early history of Indo-European languages. However, the discovery of the Tocharian languages (now extinct) that were spoken in the wrong place and time and with the wrong word for 100 for the division to make any sense put a huge dent in that idea and it is now very near-dead.

A non-exhaustive list of proposed internal connections between various Indo-European families includes:

• Greeco-Phrygian^[10]:1817
• Greeco-Armenian
• Greeco-Indo-Iranian. (This and the above two can be combined in some form.) ^{[7]:181, 338, 403}
• Germano-Balto-Slavic. Similarities between them are considered "areal" features, due to being in close contact, rather than truly shared innovations.^[7]:364
• Every Language family other than Anatolian a "true" Indo-European language with Anatolian being a sister family in a broader "Indo-Hittite" or "Indo-Anatolian" family.^[7]:155
• Every Language family other than Tocharian/Tokharian (and Anatolian, which split off early) is more closely related to each other than to Tocharian ^[7]:352
• Italo-Celtic ^[7]:247

The two branches of the Aryan myth[edit]

The Indo-European languages are one of history's success stories. As such, their origin and the reasons for their spread have given rise to speculation of varying quality. Notoriously, this included the virulent and plain evil ideology of Nazi Germany, whose monstrous genocide tainted the name "Aryan", which were (and still are) one of the names the speakers of the ancient language(s) knew themselves by. An idea arose — a fairly plausible one, actually — that since their languages spread so far, the speakers of this language must have been mighty conquerors; the territorial spread of the languages is a relic of their prehistoric empire. The myth of the Aryan conqueror, the master race, has sprouted two branches, one of which is mostly dead: that one's Nazism. It has 19^th century roots; initial discoveries about Indo-European languages were made in a context of nationalistic Romanticism, where literary figures like J. G. Herder developed loopy theories about how languages somehow embody the souls of people.^[4] Ironically, Yiddish (the language of many of the Jews that the Nazis exterminated), is a Germanic language (with elements taken from Hebrew, Aramaic and Slavic languages) that demonstrates significant cultural assimilation of Jews into the German world at one time, but linguistic relatedness that allowed Jews to live well in Germany before 1933 obviously created no solidarity based upon language.

The living branch involves feminist pseudohistory, and great gobs of fascinating woo, mostly about the utopian grandeur of an alleged age when women ruled: and the underground survival of Goddess worshipers beneath the boot of a tyrannical patriarchy. This flourishing branch also takes clues from Margaret Murray's pseudohistorical books on witchcraft, alleged to be surviving pagans persecuted by Christians. The themes of patriarchal conquerors, matriarchy, and underground pagan or Goddess worship could be relocated by fantasy novelists to settings from Mycenaean Greece (Mary Renault, The King Must Die), Arthurian Britain (Marion Zimmer Bradley, The Mists of Avalon), 17^th century Britain (John Buchan, Witch Wood), 20^th century Britain (Robin Hardy, dir., The Wicker Man), 20^th century America (Thomas Tryon, Harvest Home), and a post-apocalyptic future (Robert Graves, Seven Days In New Crete). Once you accept the idea of a secret, underground tradition of pagan or Goddess worship, none of these scenarios is historically implausible.

The surviving branch: eco-feminist pseudohistory[edit]

On this Greek vase, ca. 420 BCE, an Amazon is depicted in Scythian costume.

Early accounts of the Indo-Europeans make the frequently seen but unreliable assumption that language is co-extensive with race. Myths of Aryan conquerors are founded on a belief that it was some kind of superiority that enabled Indo-European speakers to replace previous cultures, rather than attracting them by the merits of their culture. This superiority might be innate and racial, or, much more likely, it depended on their superior military technology such as chariots and cavalry units.

Was it some prowess or the war-like virtue of the Aryans, attested in that form in India (as ā́rya आर्य), in the Greek superlative (as áristoi ἄριστοι), the best people, (i.e. aristocrats);^{[note 5]} also in the names of the countries Iran (New Persian: اِیرَان, romanized as Īrān; Middle Persian: 𐭠𐭩𐭥𐭠𐭭, romanized as Ērān; Old Persian 𐎠𐎼𐎡𐎹, romanized as Ariyaʰ; Avestan: 𐬀𐬌𐬭𐬌𐬌𐬀, romanized as aⁱriia), and more dubiously, Ireland (Éire)^{[note 6]} that spread their language across five continents? It's suggested that they were the first to master horseback riding, wagons, and chariots as military technologies. They spread their language everywhere through prowess and technology. There is a feminist counter-narrative here, from Robert Graves, Marija Gimbutas, and many others: that the Aryans were barbaric, cruel conquerors who put the utopian civilization of the Goddess to the torch, and imposed a cruel patriarchy. In Riane Eisler's The Chalice and the Blade, Aryan conquests are also seen as auguring the imposition of male domination over what once was a peaceful feminist utopia.^[12]:33

The French philologist Georges Dumézil, who supported the far-right Action Française movement, argued that the PIE peoples had a rigid social structure organised into castes, but this was a good thing because it prefigured a modern fascist society.^[13]

"Old Europe" was no utopia[edit]

In fact, at least some of the cultures some scholars believe represent pre-Indo-European populations were quite warlike; the late Cucuteni and Cernavodă cultures built large settlements with fortress-like stockade cities in their later period, and grave remains indicate a highly stratified society. High-status graves contained anti-personnel weapons like porphyry maces.^{[4]:94-5[note 7]} The archeological record shows large, concentrated hill fort settlements built along a circular plan, with palisades or stockades.

The Cucuteni apparently practiced metal smithing in these settlements, mostly in arsenical bronze; the health consequences of this technology suggest that it was practiced mostly by slaves or low-status individuals in these compounds. Indeed, in Cucuteni-Tripyllian (Tripolye) settlements, burials of infants and children are sometimes found beneath the floors of buildings, suggesting that they may have been put there as human sacrifices.^[4]:94-5

Female status among the Kurgan people[edit]

By contrast, in the Kurgan graves we find female skeletons given warrior burials with bronze weapons and wheeled vehicles as grave goods; one-sixth of such high-status graves belonged to women—not exactly equality, but more than can be said for most of the ancient world.^[14]Goddess figures and female warriors were also associated with the later population of the Indo-European homeland and are depicted in Scythian art. Ancient Greek legends make the area north and east of the Black Sea, the Colchis of antiquity, one of the locations of the legendary Amazons.^[12]:34[15]

Old Europe was not a feminist utopia. Women could hold high social status in the Kurgan cultural areas, but no comparable finds have been made for pre-IE cultures. In fact, it's likelier that the Indo-Europeans were horse breeders and traders as well as warriors, who established a trade network that stretched from the Balkans to east of the Black Sea. Their mobility and wealth, as much as their military prowess, persuaded people to adopt their language as a second language over a wide area. These folks had horses, chariots, and money. They got around. They were the sort of people your children would run away from the farm to join.

Any wars fought were local and minor. More importantly, the culture they displaced was no utopia.

Proto-Indo-European and its speakers[edit]

Homeland[edit]

“”The Indo-European homeland is like the Lost Dutchman's Mine, a legend of the American West, discovered almost everywhere but confirmed nowhere. Anyone who claims to know its real location is thought to just be a little odd—or worse. Indo-European homelands have been identified in India, Pakistan, the Himalayas, the Altaic Mountains, Kazakhstan, Russia, Ukraine, the Balkans, Turkey, Armenia, the North Caucasus, Syria, Lebanon, Germany, Scandinavia, the North Pole, and (of course) Atlantis.

—David Anthony[14]:83

Location of Yamna and Corded Ware cultures

If you admire these guys, you might want to claim your own country as their homeland. There are a variety of nationalistic claims; Nazi Germany notoriously claimed to be the Aryan homeland. Strains of Hindu nationalism, especially the proponents of Hindutva assert that the Sanskrit language is indigenous to India.

The overwhelming current scholarly consensus places the Indo-European homeland in the area of the Black Sea; a minority say Anatolia but most say that the steppes of Eastern Europe are the Indo-European homeland.^[16] A 2015 survey, combining genetic and linguistic data, concluded that the steppe hypothesis was the most likely, and that Indo-European dialects were spoken by the Yamnaya and Corded Ware culture.^[17] More recent genetic and archaeological studies have linked by the Corded Ware culture and the Afanasievo culture of Siberia to a Yamna origin.^[18]

Of course, the biggest problem with all localization attempts is that ceramic shards speak no language and material culture and language don't have to correlate (both American and Japanese people play with similar-looking Nintendo gadgets, yet the two languages are entirely unrelated). On the other hand, genetic studies are — if anything — only partially useful. Genetics and language can correlate but they don't have to. Large-scale migrations are attested in the historical record and they sometimes caused either the native language and culture of an area to disappear (e.g. the conquest of the Americas for the most part) or migrant's language and culture to largely disappear (e.g. the age of migrations in the 5^th century that left almost no trace of Germanic language or culture in Gaul, Hispania, or Italy). In neither case is there a clear-cut genetic picture, as evidenced by the myriad (real or fake) descendants of Pocahontas and the very un-Spanish name Rodriguez (son of Roderic).

Questionable homeland arguments[edit]

• Salmon argument. The existence of a word for Atlantic salmon in Proto-Indo-European reconstructed as *loḱs- found in the Balto-Slavic and Germanic language families means that the homeland was in the Baltic. This argument is questionable because Germanic and Balto-Slavic may have had close ties to one another and the word may not have referred to the Atlantic salmon but to the related brown trout.^[11]:146-147
• Beech argument. The existence of a word for beech reconstructed as *b^heh₂gos found in Greek, Celtic, Italic, Albanian, and Germanic was used as an argument for a homeland west of a line stretching from Kaliningrad (the disconnected part of Russia) to Odessa (the part just below Moldova), because that is where the Common beech's range ends. However, descendants of the word are not found in Indo-Iranian, Tocharian/Tokharian, or Anatolian, the descendants mean "oak" in Greek and Albanian, and there are also closely related species of Beech in Crimea, the Caucasus and Anatolia.^{[note 8][11]:161, 170-171}

When was PIE spoken?[edit]

The actual time when PIE was spoken is debated, but a tentative guess puts it at no earlier than 4,000 BCE. A minority position states that it was spoken 8,000 BCE, a position which overlaps with people who say the PIE homeland was Anatolia. A fringe position states that it was spoken as early as the Paleolithic in something called "Paleolithic continuity theory" or, more bombastically, "Paleolithic Continuity Paradigm".^{[19][note 9]}

Proto-Indo-European religion[edit]

Researchers can apply the comparative method to religious vocabulary in an attempt to piece together commonalities of religion across the different groups who have spoken Indo-European languages. This may possibly give an insight into any putative common ancestor(s) of the major European religious traditions: Roman, Germanic (including Norse), Greek, Sanskrit (Hindu) and (more speculatively) Slavic.

A word for "god" occurs in many languages: dēva (Sanskrit: देव), deus (Latin), duw (Welsh).^[21]:167-168 Émile Benveniste claimed there are no PIE words for "religion", "cult", "priest", ^{[note 10]} or anything similar, though there are common roots with the meaning "holy/sacred" and "pray". This seems to indicate a religion of some sort but that PIE culture was not so developed that people occupied specialized religious offices full-time.

Specific gods, goddesses, and religious themes include (asterisks denote reconstructions):

• A common chief god, in PIE *Dyēus Ph₂tēr, giving Latin Jupiter, Greek Zeús or Días (in Greek script: Ζεύς or Δίας respectively), Sanskrit Dyáuṣpitŕ̥ or Dyáus (in Devanagari script: द्यौष्पितृ or द्यौस् respectively), Germanic Týr (Old English: Tiw), and Illyrian Dei-pátrous.^[21]:166-173
• *Perkwunos, "the Striker", present as Sanskrit Parjánya (in Devanagari script: पर्जन्य), Prussian Perkuns, Lithuanian Perkūnas, Latvian Pērkons, Slavic Perun, and Norse Fjörgyn. This is etymologically unrelated to, but mythologically similar to, Germanic Thor and Celtic Sucellus.^{[21]:133, 137, 234, 239-243, 245, 254, 259}
• *H₂eus(os), goddess of dawn: Greek Eos, Latin Aurora, Vedic Uṣás (Sanskrit: उषस्). A Germanic Ostara or Eostre is sparsely attested.^{[21]:217-218, 227}
• *Deh₂nu, a river goddess, probably connected with the Dnieper, Dniester, Don, and Danube, and various goddesses: Sanskrit Danu (in Devanagari: दनु), Irish Danu, Welsh Don.
• Divine twin ancestors of humanity, possibly *Manu- and *Yemo-. The Greco-Roman stories of Apollo and Artemis, Castor and Pollux, or Romulus and Remus could derive from this tradition.^[21]:356-359
• A kind of veneration of horses (likely domesticated, but not for riding by the PIE culture) as sacred - often depicted as a set of twin brothers. The Hindu Aśvin (Sanskrit: अश्विन्) continues this tradition, as do Hengist and Horsa ('Stallion' and 'Mare'), the legendary Anglo-Saxon conquerors of Britain.^[11]:432
• A conflict between a god or hero and a water-based dragon or giant sea serpent. Tarhunt vs. Illuyanka from Hittite myths, Perseus vs. Cetus or Heracles vs. the Hydra from Greek Mythology, Sigurd vs. Fafnir or the dragon that Beowulf slew.^[21]:255-259 The trope appears to have continued into the Christian era - as in the story of St. George vs. the Dragon. Although the hero always wins sometimes the hero is killed at the end of the battle such as Thor's fate versus Jörmungandr during Ragnarök.
• An evil or malicious deity who is forcibly bound by entrails. These include Fenrir, Loki, Ahriman from Zoroastrianism, or Prometheus.^{[note 11]}

It is claimed that the Kalash people of Pakistan practice a continuation of this ancient religion.^[22] There have been attempts to reconstruct Greek, Roman and Slavic religious practices, with Zeus, Jupiter, Dyáus, and the Slavic chief god Perun^[23] all becoming objects of worship. However, there have been fewer attempts to revive PIE religion: in part, this is because people know even less about PIE practices than those of Greeks or even of Slavs. Despite this, Ukrainian Neo-Pagans have used ideas about the PIE religion.^[24] There have been attempts to reconstruct PIE rituals, with one website suggesting that offerings of dairy foods would be a good starting point.^[13] As with everything else about PIE society, knowledge of PIE religion is very limited and one may regard any claims of PIE prayers or rituals with deep skepticism.

Trifunctional hypothesis[edit]

The trifunctional hypothesis is the idea that the Proto-Indo-European social structure was divided into three parts, each with a specific role or "function": Government and religion; Military; food and welfare.^{[note 12][25]:10} This structure then left traces in the mythology of various Indo-European groups. The hypothesis was created by linguist Georges Dumézil in the late 1920s and developed throughout his life.

Dumézil based his hypothesis on the supposed agreement of the mythologies of various Indo-European groups, particularly Vedic, Zoroastrian, Roman, and, with some modification, Norse, and Celtic.^[25]:144-5 According to Dumézil, tripartite structures are not found natively in non-Indo-European societies and cultures.^[25]:56 Originally, the trifunctional hypothesis proposed that Proto-Indo-European society was literally tripartite, before the hypothesis developed into an observation that "We often find a tripartite structure in Indo-European traditions."^[25]:230 Also, at varying points through his career, Dumézil described goddesses as part of the third function specifically (through fertility), as somehow representing "all" the functions simultaneously, or as part of both the first and third.^[25]:217-27

The hypothesis has been criticized for being unverifiable (anything can be seen as "a trace" of the original tripartite system)^[25]:229-32, unfalsifiable (any apparent tripartite structure in other societies is the result of Indo-European influence)^[25]:232-3, imprecise (Are the three functions social realities or just an "ideology"? How aware of this system were the Proto-Indo-Europeans? What does the third function actually do? Are goddesses part of it specifically or part of all functions?)^[25]:233-7, and inconsistent.^[25]:233-7 Dumézil himself has been accused of harboring fascist sympathies that may have influenced his research.^[2]:2 He has also been accused of studying a "platonic ideal" that merely reflects what Dumézil wanted to see rather than any real prehistoric society or religion.^[2]:243

Proposed external relations[edit]

A vein of rich speculation seeks to relate Indo-European to other reconstructed protolanguages. Historical linguistics is founded on a principle called the comparative method. A relationship between two languages cannot be established only by discovering words that seem to resemble each other; they must be shown to derive from a common ancestor. There must be a consistent set of sound changes from a (partially) reconstructable protolanguage. Historical linguistics does not simply seek to demonstrate the possibility that two languages might be related; it means to show specifically how and arrange languages cladistically on a family tree.

Some of the many attempts to connect Indo-European to other families include:

• Indo-Uralic, combining the Uralic family, which includes Finnish, Estonian, the Sámi languages, Hungarian, and a bunch of others mostly spoken in western Siberia and around the Urals, with Indo-European.^[26]:2281-3 A much crazier theory connects Indo-European to "Uralo-Siberian" which is Uralic combined with the Yukaghir and Eskimo-Aleut language families.^[5]:409
• Nostratic, combining Indo-European with: Afroasiatic, Kartvelian (Georgian and a few close relatives), the dubious Altaic language family (which includes Mongolic, Turkic, and Tungusic, as "macro-Altaic". Some versions include Japonic and Koreanic as "micro-Altaic"), Dravidian, Ainu, and Uralic.^[5]:243 There is a wide variety of languages and language families included or excluded in Nostratic, so it may not make sense to speak of it as a coherent hypothesis, but those are the language families most commonly included. Some versions of Nostratic also include different reconstructions of Proto-Indo-European and thus different cognates. The version of Allan Bomhard, for example, subscribes to something called Glottalic theory where traditionally reconstructed b, d, g are instead p' , t' , k' .^[5]:244
• Eurasiatic, which includes Uralic, Yukaghir, Koreanic-Japonic-Ainu, Nivkh, the Chukotko-Kamchatkan languages, and Eskimo-Aleut.^[5]:264
• Borean, which includes the Nostratic family mentioned above, and the proposed Dene-Caucasian and Austric families, both of which, incidentally, are controversial.^[27]
• Indo-Semitic, which makes it so that Indo-European is a subfamily of Afro-Asiatic by making IE related to the Semitic languages. Most modern linguists believe the similarities between the two languages are due to massive borrowings, especially from Arabic and Hebrew, amongst others.^[26]:2283-4

While some languages change faster than others, as you move further into the past it becomes more likely that family resemblances drift further; eventually, you reach a point where further relationships are no longer recoverable. This is why bulk comparison of vocabulary and invitations to see resemblances are, without more elaborate explanations, one of the signature features of pseudolinguistics. Additionally, when linguists say that some languages are not related to others, they simply mean that they cannot be demonstrated to be related. For all we know, human language might have evolved only once, but because of the length of time of evolution involved, evidence of relationship has simply vanished. To take an example, there have been claims that Elamite languages are related to the Dravidian languages. It has proved impossible to demonstrate that, and there are very few people who are qualified to form an opinion.

See also[edit]

• Latin
• Sanskrit
• English
• Hebrew
• Esperanto
• Horse: The spread of the domestic horse across Eurasia correlates with the spread of the Indo-European languages

Further reading[edit]

• Baldi, Philip (1983). An Introduction to the Indo-European Languages. Southern Illinois University Press.
• Meier-Brügger, Michael (2000). Indogermanische Sprachwissenschaft. Walter de Gruyter.
• Szemerényi, Oswald J. L. (1999). Intrduction to Indo-European Linguistics. Oxford University Press.

External links[edit]

• Martin W. Lewis, The Vexatious History of Indo-European Studies, part 1. (GeoCurrents, 2013); part 2.

• Martin W. Lewis's lecture on Indo-European origins.

Notes[edit]

References[edit]