The Info List - Indo-European Languages

--- Advertisement ---

_Pontic Steppe_

* Domestication of the horse * Kurgan * Kurgan culture

* Steppe cultures

* Bug-Dniester * Sredny Stog * Dnieper-Donets * Samara * Khvalynsk

* Yamna

* Mikhaylovka culture


* Maykop


* Afanasevo

_Eastern Europe_

* Usatovo * Cernavodă * Cucuteni

_Northern Europe_

* Corded ware

* Baden * Middle Dnieper

------------------------- Bronze Age

_Pontic Steppe_

* Chariot * Yamna * Catacomb * Multi-cordoned ware * Poltavka * Srubna

_Northern/Eastern Steppe_

* Abashevo culture * Andronovo * Sintashta


* Beaker * Globular Amphora culture * Corded ware * Tumulus * Unetice * Urnfield * Lusatian * Nordic Bronze Age * Terramare * Trzciniec


* BMAC * Yaz * Gandhara grave

------------------------- Iron Age


* Chernoles


* Thraco-Cimmerian * Hallstatt * Jastorf


* Colchian


* Painted Grey Ware * Northern Black Polished Ware

Peoples and societies Bronze Age

* Anatolians * Armenians * Mycenaean Greeks * Indo-Iranians

Iron Age


* Indo-Aryans


* Iranians

* Scythians * Persians * Medes


* Celts

* Gauls * Celtiberians * Insular Celts

* Hellenic peoples * Italic peoples * Germanic peoples

* Paleo-Balkans / Anatolia :

* Thracians * Dacians * Illyrians * Phrygians

Middle Ages


* Tocharians


* Balts * Slavs * Albanians * Medieval Europe


* Medieval India


* Greater Persia

Religion and mythology _Reconstructed_

* Proto-Indo-European religion * Proto-Indo-Iranian religion

------------------------- _Historical_

* Hittite


* Vedic

* Hinduism

* Buddhism * Jainism


* Persian

* Zoroastrianism

* Kurdish

* Yazidism * Yarsanism

* Scythian

* Ossetian


* Armenian


* Paleo-Balkans * Greek * Roman

* Celtic

* Irish * Scottish * Breton * Welsh * Cornish

* Germanic

* Anglo-Saxon * Continental * Norse

* Baltic

* Latvian * Lithuanian

* Slavic * Albanian


* Fire-sacrifice * Horse sacrifice * Sati * Winter solstice / Yule

Indo-European studies _Scholars_

* Marija Gimbutas * J.P. Mallory


* Copenhagen Studies in Indo-European


* _ Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture _ * _ The Horse, the Wheel and Language _ * _ Journal of Indo-European Studies _ * _ Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch _ * _ Indo-European Etymological Dictionary _

* v * t * e

The INDO-EUROPEAN LANGUAGES are a language family of several hundred related languages and dialects . 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 . The most widely spoken Indo-European languages by native speakers are Spanish , English , Hindustani , Portuguese , Bengali , Russian , and Punjabi , each with over 100 million speakers, with German , French and Persian also having significant numbers. Today, about 46% of the human population 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 ; exceptions include Hungarian , Finnish , and Estonian (Uralic languages ), as well as Turkish (a Turkic language ); Basque (a language isolate ), and Maltese (an Afro-Asiatic language ). The Indo-European family is also represented in Western , Central , and South Asia . It was also predominant 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 . With written evidence appearing since the Bronze Age in the form of the Anatolian languages and Mycenaean Greek , the Indo-European family is significant to the field of historical linguistics as possessing the second-longest recorded history , after the Afroasiatic family , although certain language isolates , such as Sumerian , Elamite , Hurrian , Hattian and Kassite are recorded earlier.

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-European people can also be reconstructed from the related cultures of ancient and modern Indo-European speakers who continue to live in areas to where the Proto-Indo-Europeans migrated from their original homeland . Several disputed proposals link Indo-European to other major language families.


* 1 History of Indo-European linguistics

* 2 Classification

* 2.1 Grouping * 2.2 Tree versus wave model * 2.3 Proposed subgroupings * 2.4 Satem and centum languages * 2.5 Suggested macrofamilies

* 3 Evolution

* 3.1 Proto-Indo-European * 3.2 Diversification * 3.3 Important languages for reconstruction * 3.4 Sound changes * 3.5 Comparison of conjugations

* 4 Comparison of cognates

* 5 Morphology

* 5.1 Ablaut * 5.2 Word Structure * 5.3 Root Structure * 5.4 Verb Structure * 5.5 Noun Structure

* 6 Syntax

* 6.1 Phrase Structure * 6.2 Word Order * 6.3 Clause Structure

* 7 Present distribution of Indo-European languages * 8 See also * 9 References * 10 Sources * 11 Further reading

* 12 External links

* 12.1 Databases * 12.2 Lexica


Main article: Indo-European studies

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

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 _. 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", and others, noting that related languages (including Latin, Greek, German and Russian) must have separated in antiquity from common ancestors.

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 , though his classification contained some inaccuracies and omissions.

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 . 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_ 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. 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.


See also: Indo-European migrations and List of languages by first written accounts

The various subgroups of the Indo-European language family include ten major branches, given in alphabetical order

* Albanian , attested from the 15th century AD; Proto-Albanian language is believed by some to have evolved from Illyrian , a Paleo-Balkan language , however, there is insufficient evidence to connect Albanian to the Paleo-Balkan languages. * 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. * Armenian , attested from the 5th century AD.

* Balto-Slavic , believed by most Indo-Europeanists 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 . These include Russian , Polish , Czech , Slovak , Serbo-Croatian , Slovenian , Ukrainian , Belorussian , Ruthenian and Bulgarian among others. * Baltic , attested from the 14th century AD; for languages attested that late, they retain unusually many archaic features attributed to Proto-Indo-European (PIE). Living examples are Lithuanian and Latvian .

* Celtic (from Proto-Celtic ), attested since 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. This includes modern Welsh , Cornish , Breton , Scots Gaelic , Irish Gaelic and Manx * Germanic (from Proto-Germanic ), earliest testimonies in runic inscriptions from around the 2nd century AD, earliest coherent texts in Gothic , 4th century AD. Old English manuscript tradition from about the 8th century AD. Includes English , Frisian , German , Dutch , Danish , Swedish , Norwegian , Afrikaans , Yiddish and Low German . * 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. 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. 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- 2nd millennium BC in the form of Vedic Sanskrit . Includes a wide range of modern languages from Northern India , Pakistan and Bangladesh including Hindustani , Bengali , Assamese , Punjabi , Kashmiri , Gujarati , Marathi and Nepali as well as Sinhalese of Sri Lanka * 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 and Kurdish * Nuristani

* Italic , (from Proto-Italic ) including Latin and its descendants (the Romance languages ), attested from the 7th century BC. Includes Latin , Italian , French , Spanish , Portuguese , Romanian , Sardinian , Catalan , and Romansh * Tocharian , proposed to be linked to the Afanasevo culture . 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 have existed:

* Illyrian : possibly related to Albanian, Messapian, or both * Venetic : shares several similarities with Latin and the Italic languages, but also has some affinities with other IE languages, especially Germanic and Celtic. * Liburnian : doubtful affiliation, features shared with Venetic, Illyrian, and Indo-Hittite , significant transition of the Pre-Indo-European elements * Messapian : not conclusively deciphered * Phrygian : language of the ancient Phrygians * Paionian : extinct language once spoken north of Macedon * Thracian : possibly including Dacian * Dacian : possibly very close to Thracian * Ancient Macedonian : proposed relationship to Greek. * Ligurian – possibly close to or part of Celtic. * 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. * Lusitanian : possibly related to (or part of) Celtic, Ligurian, or Italic * Cimmerian : possibly Iranic, Thracian, or Celtic


Further information: Language families Indo-European Family Tree

Membership of these 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.


See also: Language change

The "tree model " is considered an appropriate representation of the genetic 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. Most approaches to Indo-European subgrouping to date have assumed that the tree model is by and large valid for Indo-European; however, there is also a long tradition of wave-model approaches.

In addition to genetic 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.

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


Hypothetical Indo-European phylogenetic clades


* Daco-Thracian * Graeco-Armenian * Graeco-Aryan * Graeco-Phrygian * Hellenic * Thraco-Illyrian


* Italo-Celtic * Indo-Hittite * Indo-Uralic

* v * t * e

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.

The Italo-Celtic subgroup was at one point uncontroversial, considered by Antoine Meillet to be even better established than Balto-Slavic. The main lines of evidence included the genitive suffix _-ī_; the superlative suffix _-m̥mo_; the change of /p/ to /kʷ/ before another /kʷ/ in the same word (as in _penkʷe_ > _*kʷenkʷe_ > Latin _quīnque_, Old Irish _cóic_); and the subjunctive morpheme _-ā-_. This evidence was prominently challenged by Calvert Watkins ; but other, stronger evidence has since emerged.

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". Greek and Indo-Iranian share innovations mainly in verbal morphology and patterns of nominal derivation. Relations have also been proposed between Phrygian and Greek, and between Thracian and Armenian. 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 and Tocharian. Shared features with Balto-Slavic languages, on the other hand (especially present and preterit formations), might be due to later contacts. The Indo-Hittite hypothesis proposes the Indo-European language family to consist of two main branches: one represented by the Anatolian languages and another branch encompassing all other Indo-European languages. Features that separate Anatolian from all other branches of Indo-European (such as the gender or the verb system) have been interpreted alternately as archaic debris or as innovations due to prolonged isolation. Points proffered in favour of the Indo-Hittite hypothesis are the (non-universal) Indo-European agricultural terminology in Anatolia and the preservation of laryngeals. However, in general this hypothesis is considered to attribute too much weight to the Anatolian evidence. According to another view, the Anatolian subgroup left the Indo-European parent language comparatively late, approximately at the same time as Indo-Iranian and later than the Greek or Armenian divisions. A third view, especially prevalent in the so-called French school of Indo-European studies, holds that extant similarities in non-satem languages in general – including Anatolian – might be due to their peripheral location in the Indo-European language area and early separation, rather than indicating a special ancestral relationship. Hans J. Holm, based on lexical calculations, arrives at a picture roughly replicating the general scholarly opinion and refuting the Indo-Hittite hypothesis.


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- Main article: Centum and satem languages

The division of the Indo-European languages into satem and centum groups was put forward by Peter von Bradke in 1890, although a similar type of division had been proposed by Karl Brugmann 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 in the former, but became an ordinary velar 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. Kortlandt proposes that the ancestors of Balts and Slavs took part in satemization before being drawn later into the western Indo-European sphere.


See also: Origin of language

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 are:

* 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, are:

* 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 it can even be possible to distinguish between signal and noise.



Main article: Proto-Indo-European language Scheme of Indo-European migrations from ca. 4000 to 1000 BC according to the Kurgan hypothesis .

The proposed Proto-Indo-European language (PIE) is the hypothetical common ancestor of the Indo-European languages, spoken by the Proto-Indo-Europeans . From the 1960s, knowledge of Anatolian became certain enough to establish its relationship to PIE. Using the method of internal reconstruction an earlier stage, called Pre-Proto-Indo-European , has been proposed.

PIE was an inflected language , in which the grammatical relationships between words were signaled through inflectional morphemes (usually endings). The roots of PIE are basic morphemes carrying a lexical meaning. By addition of suffixes , they form stems , and by addition of desinences (usually endings), these form grammatically inflected words (nouns or verbs ). The hypothetical Indo-European verb system is complex and, like the noun, exhibits a system of ablaut .


See also: Indo-European migrations


IE languages ca. 4000 BC

IE languages ca. 3000 BC

IE languages ca. 2000 BC

IE languages ca. 500 BC


IE languages ca. 3500 BC

IE languages ca. 2500 BC

IE languages ca. 1500 BC

IE languages ca. 500 AD

The diversification of the parent language into the attested branches of daughter languages is historically unattested. The timeline of the evolution of the various daughter languages, on the other hand, is mostly undisputed, quite regardless of the question of Indo-European origins .

Using a mathematical analysis borrowed from evolutionary biology, Don Ringe and Tandy Warnow propose the following evolutionary tree of Indo-European branches:

* Pre-Anatolian (before 3500 BC) * Pre-Tocharian * Pre-Italic and Pre-Celtic (before 2500 BC) * Pre-Armenian and Pre-Greek (after 2500 BC) * Pre-Germanic and Pre-Balto-Slavic; proto-Germanic ca. 500 BC * Proto-Indo-Iranian (2000 BC)

David Anthony proposes the following sequence:

* 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 BC–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 BC–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. 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.


In reconstructing the history of the Indo-European languages and the form of the Proto-Indo-European language , some languages have been of particular importance. These generally include the ancient Indo-European languages that are both well-attested and documented at an early date, although some languages from later periods are important if they are particularly linguistically conservative (most notably, Lithuanian ). Early poetry is of special significance because of the rigid poetic meter normally employed, which makes it possible to reconstruct a number of features (e.g. vowel length ) that were either unwritten or corrupted in the process of transmission down to the earliest extant written manuscripts .

Most important of all:

* 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 Rig Veda (c. 1500 BC). * Mycenaean Greek (c. 1450 BC) and Ancient Greek (c. 750 – 400 BC). Mycenaean Greek 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:

* 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 – 1100 AD). * Albanian (c. 1450 – current time).


Main article: Indo-European sound laws

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:

* As in other centum languages, the "plain velar" and "palatal" stops merged, reducing the number of stops from 15 to 12.

* 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_ * 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 .



*P P; PHH P Ø; CHT F; `-B- F; -V/F- _*pṓds ~ *ped-_ _foot_ _pád-_ _poús (podós)_ _pēs (pedis)_ _pãdas_

*T T; THH T T; -TH- þ ; `-D- ; TT- TH; `-D-; TT- _*tréyes_ _three_ _tráyas_ _treĩs_ _trēs_ _trỹs_

*ḱ ś S š K C C ; -CH- H; `-G- H; -Ø-; `-Y- _*ḱm̥tóm_ _hund(red)_ _śatám_ _he-katón_ _centum_ _šimtas_

*K K; CE ; KHH K; čE ; CE' K _*kreuh₂_ "raw meat" OE _hrēaw_ _raw_ _kravíṣ-_ _kréas_ _cruor_ _kraûjas_

*Kʷ P; TE; K(u) QU ; C(O) ƕ ; `-GW/W- WH; `-W- _*kʷid, kʷod_ _what_ _kím_ _tí_ _quid, quod_ _kas_, _kad_

_*kʷekʷlom_ _wheel_ _cakrá-_ _kúklos_


*B B; BHH B B ; -- P

*D D; DHH D D ; -- T _*déḱm̥(t)_ _ten_, Goth. _taíhun_ _dáśa_ _déka_ _decem_ _dẽšimt_

*ǵ J ; HH Z ž G G ; -- K C / K; CHE' _*ǵénu, *ǵnéu-_ OE _cnēo_ _knee_ _jā́nu_ _gónu_ _genu_

*G G; JE ; GHH; HH,E G; žE ; DZE' G _*yugóm_ _yoke_ _yugám_ _zugón_ _iugum_ _jùngas_

*Gʷ B; De; G(u) U ; GUn− B ; -- Q QU _*gʷīw-_ _quick_ "alive" _jīvá-_ _bíos_, _bíotos_ _vīvus_ _gývas_

*Bʰ BH; B..Ch B PH; P..Ch F-; B B ; --; -F B; -V/F-(rl) _*bʰerō_ _bear_ "carry" _bhar-_ _phérō_ _ferō_ OCS _berǫ_

*Dʰ DH; D..Ch D TH; T..Ch F-; D; B(r),l,u- D ; -- D ; --; -þ D _*dʰwer-, dʰur-_ _door_ _dhvā́raḥ_ _thurā́_ _forēs_ _dùrys_

*ǵʰ H ; J..Ch Z ž KH; K..Ch H; H/GR G ; -- G; -G- ; -G G; -Y/W-(rl) _*ǵʰans-_ _goose_, OHG _gans_ _haṁsáḥ_ _khḗn_ _(h)ānser_ _žąsìs_

*Gʰ GH; HE ; G..Ch; JE..Ch G; žE ; DZE' G

*Gʷʰ PH; THE; KH(u); P..Ch; TE..Ch; K(u)..Ch F-; G / -U- ; nGU G; B-; -W-; nGW G; B-; -W- _*sneigʷʰ-_ _snow_ _sneha-_ _nípha_ _nivis_ _sniẽgas_

_*gʷʰerm-_ ??_warm_ _gharmáḥ_ _thermós_ _formus_ Latv. _gar̂me_

*S S H-; -S; S(T); -Ø-; (R) S; -R- S ; -- S; `-Z- S; `-R- _*septḿ̥_ _seven_ _saptá_ _heptá_ _septem_ _septynì_

ṣruki- Xruki- šruki- _*h₂eusōs_ "dawn" _east_ _uṣā́ḥ_ _āṓs_ _aurōra_ _aušra_

*M M M ; -- M _*mūs_ _mouse_ _mū́ṣ-_ _mũs_ _mūs_ OCS _myšĭ_

*-M -M -˛ -N -M -N -Ø _*ḱm̥tóm_ _hund(red)_ _śatám_ _(he)katón_ _centum_ OPrus _simtan_

*N N N; -˛ N _*nokʷt-_ _night_ _nákt-_ _núkt-_ _noct-_ _naktis_

*L R (dial. L) L _*leuk-_ _light_ _rócate_ _leukós_ _lūx_ _laũkas_

*R R _*h₁reudʰ-_ _red_ _rudhirá-_ _eruthrós_ _ruber_ _raũdas_

*I̯ Y J Z / H; -Ø- I ; -Ø- Ø J Y _*yugóm_ _yoke_ _yugám_ _zugón_ _iugum_ _jùngas_

*U̯ V V V W > H / Ø U F; -Ø- W _*h₂weh₁n̥to-_ _wind_ _vā́taḥ_ _áenta_ _ventus_ _vėtra_



* 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 ).


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')

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




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

berǫ *berja

YOU (2ND SG.) phéreis bhárasi barahi fers biri; berir beres baíris


HE/SHE/IT (3RD SG.) phérei bhárati baraiti fert berid berē baíriþ


WE (1ST DUAL) — bhárāvas barāvahi — — — baíros


YOU (2ND DUAL) phéreton bhárathas — — — — baírats


THEY (3RD DUAL) phéreton bháratas baratō — — — —


WE (1ST PL.) phéromen bhárāmas barāmahi ferimus bermai beremk` baíram


YOU (2ND PL.) phérete bháratha baraϑa fertis beirthe berēk` baíriþ


THEY (3RD PL.) phérousi bháranti barəṇti ferunt berait beren baírand



I (1ST SG.) férno (maiṃ) bharūṃ (man) {mi}baram (je) {con}fère beirim berum em; g'perem (ich) {ge}bäre beriu beru (unë) bie

YOU (2ND SG.) férnis (tū) bhare (tu) {mi}bari (tu) {con}fères beirir berum es; g'peres (du) {ge}bierst beri bereš (ti) bie

HE/SHE/IT (3RD SG.) férni (vah) bhare (ān) {mi}barad (il) {con}fère beireann; %beiridh berum ē; g'perē (er)(sie)(es) {ge}biert beria bere (ai/ajo) bie







WE (1ST PL.) férnume (ham) bhareṃ (mā) {mi}barim (nous) {con}férons beirimid; beiream berum enk`; g'perenk` (wir) {ge}bären beriame berem(e) (ne) biem

YOU (2ND PL.) férnete (tum) bharo (šomā) {mi}barid (vous) {con}férez beireann sibh; %beirthaoi berum ek`; g'perek` (ihr) {ge}bärt beriate berete (ju) bini

THEY (3RD PL.) férnun (ve) bhareṃ (ānān) {mi}barand (ils) {con}fèrent beirid berum en; g'peren (sie) {ge}bären beria berou (ata/ato) bien

While similarities are still visible between the modern descendants and relatives of these ancient languages, the differences have increased over time. Some IE languages have moved from synthetic verb systems to largely periphrastic systems. In addition, the pronouns of periphrastic forms are in 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 French, other verbs now mean "to carry" and _ferre_ only survives 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_.


Main article: Indo-European vocabulary See also: Proto-Indo-European numerals and List of numbers in various languages


Introduction: Morphology is the study of word formation. The Greek root ‘morph’ means shape or form; thus morphology is interested in how words form. Languages in the Indo-European family have many similarities in the morphology of their words. For example, all Indo-European languages share a remarkably similar formation of words and a striking similarity in their root structure. In terms of affixes, all Indo-European languages mark their nouns and verbs with various affixes to indicate a wide range of information such as number and case.


Ablaut is the process of vowel changes within a morpheme to indicate changes in grammatical functions. For example, in English the verb infinitive _sing_ changes its vowel _i_ to _a_ and becomes _sang_ to indicate past tense, and becomes _sung_ (change to _u_) to indicate participle, and finally it becomes _song_ (change to _o_) to indicate a noun. Linguists do not yet completely agree whether or not ablaut is a phonetic or morphological process.

Each variant of the vowel is called a grade. The vowel _e_ is called _e_-grade. It is the most common vowel and is also called the _full_ grade. Other grades are _o_-grade, long _e_-grade, and empty grade when the vowel is missing. The first table below contains some examples of ablaut within a language and the second table examples of ablaut across languages.


Latin tego --> toga I cover --> a garment that covers verb --> noun

Greek étekon --> tétoka I gave birth --> I have given birth past tense --> perfect tense

Greek leípo --> léloipa --> élipon I leave --> I have left past tense --> perfect tense

Greek pénthos --> pépontha --> épathon suffering --> I have suffered --> I suffered gerund/noun --> perfect tense --> past tense

Greek patēr --> patéra --> patrós father subject --> object --> possessive


*sed sedēre (to sit) hédra (seat) sit

*sod - - sat

*sēd sēdēs (seat) - seat

*sot - - soot


Words in all Indo-European languages consist of a root morpheme and optionally affixes. Different languages have different affixes to mark a variety of grammatical information such as tense, number, and case. In English for example, the word _walked_ consists of the root morpheme _walk_ and the past tense suffix –_ed_.

In terms of placement, affixes can be divided into prefix, suffix, and infix. Prefixes come before the root, such as the negation marker (also called privative prefix) _un_- in English . Suffixes come after the root such as the adverb marker –_ly_ in English . Infixes come in the middle of the word, such as in Sanskrit _yunakti_ where –_na_- is a nasal infix.

Moreover, these affixes fall into two main types: derivational affixes, and inflectional affixes. Derivational affixes are those that serve to alter the part of speech of a word. For example, in English , the suffix _–tion_ added to a verb such as “implement” changes it to a noun, “implementation.” In the same way, also in English , adding the suffix _–al_ to a word such as “function” changes it to an adjective, in this case, “functional”. The second group of affixes, inflectional affixes, are those that change the aspects of a word, such as tense, voice and number. For example, in French , adding the suffix –_ions_ to the root of a verb such as “parler” forms the verb conjugation for the first-person plural in the past progressive, “parlions.” Similarly, in French , adding the suffix –_ez_ to the infinitive of a verb like “dormir” creates “dormirez”, the conjugation for the second-person plural in the future.


The root of a word is the most important and the smallest meaning-carrying unit. Therefore, much research has been devoted to its study. One aim of root study is to find a unifying theory of its structure. The most prevalent and widely-accepted theory is put forward by Émile Benveniste . In the simplest form, all Indo-European roots take on the form of _CeC_ where _C_ stands for a consonant and _e_ stands for a vowel. The choice of _e_ to stand for a vowel is because it is the most frequent vowel in all Indo-European languages. There are some variants of the root structure, most notably _CReC, CeRC,_ and _CCeC_ where _R_ stands for a resonant. Examples of each variation is shown in the following table.


_CeC_ Latin sed sit

_CReC_ Sanskrit bhár carry

_CeRC_ Gothic guitan pour

_CCeC_ Greek Zdeús god


Indo-European verbs express actions in at least three dimensions: tense, voice, and mood. And many of these dimensions are expressed as suffixes to the verb stem. For example, in English , most of the past tense is expressed by adding the ending –_ed_ to the verb; hence, the past tense of _walk_ is _walked_. Proto-Indo-European languages had much more markings than their modern descendants. For example, PIE verbs were thought to have hundreds of forms.


The most salient similarity among all Indo-European nouns is the number marker. All modern Indo-European languages have a plural marker. PIE and some modern daughter languages have three – singular, dual, and plural. Many Indo-European languages also have case markers on the noun to indicate their grammatical function, usually subjects and objects.


Syntax is the study of sentence structures. Although commonly thought of as grammar especially by people outside linguistics, linguists study syntax with the goal of finding deep, unifying structures that underlie a sentence’s surface form. Syntax poses a particular challenge for historical languages because surviving texts are very rare and moreover, surviving texts of general genre and good quality are even more rare, making syntactic analysis particular difficult and uncertain. However, careful, persistent, and ingenious research has led to fruitful results.


Phrases that have been researched extensively are noun phrases, pre- and post-positional phrases, and verb phrases. Noun phrases in Indo-European languages are modified by adjectival phrases and in many languages in the family, the adjectives and the nouns must agree in number, gender, and/or case. Although modern English only has prepositional phrases (such as _on the table_), many Indo-European languages also have post-positional phrases in which the preposition occurs after the noun phrase. In some languages, the preposition or the postposition becomes an affix instead of a separate word. Verb phrases are modified by adverbs, sometimes called preverbs. Adverbs or preverbs can be realized in word form (such as in English ) or attached as prefix such as most prevalent Sanskrit , Celtic , ], and Old Irish . In terms of their patterns, their numbers, their order, their sematic compositions, preverbs differ widely in languages in which they are present. Some examples of preverbs are presented in the following table.


Sanskrit pratus onward-please = to delight

Old Irish cretim I believe

Latin crēdō I believe

Celtic arcain before+sings = proclaims


Word order of IE languages is a topic in historical linguistics that is less agreed upon among linguists. Some view holds that historically, IE languages are mostly verb final and its word order is SOV (subject object verb). The most striking example is in Hittie which is almost exclusively verb final. But other than Hittie , none of the other IE languages are consistently verb-final in their clauses. Another school of thought is that the IE languages are largely SVO, championed by Friedrich. Recently, Friedrich’s SVO was discovered as a result of right-shift movement. Although many linguists think IE languages cannot be neatly categorized into a strict word order, others propose that the different word orders are patterned and regular and differ only in degree, still others propose that IE languages are free word order. Research is still looking for a model to explain the diverse yet structured way IE languages order their words.

No matter whether or not a general basic word order exists across the IE languages, each language provides various mechanisms for constructing sentences different from the ‘basic word order.’ In English , examples of these mechanisms include topicalization, PP-fronting, Negative-initial, and WH-movement. The table below provides an example of each of these mechanisms in English . The existence of these mechanisms for changing word order gives rise to the idea that word order may also be prosodic as well as syntactic.


Topicalization That book, I won’t read. SVO --> OSV

PP-fronting Over the hill lies the river. SV --> VS

Negative-initial Never was I late. SV --> VS

WH-movement What did you say? SVO --> OSV


In Indo-European languages, both historical and present, subjects need to agree with their predicates in either number, gender, or case, or all. Secondly, relative clauses in many IE languages occur before the main clause and moreover, the relative pronouns and any pronouns in the main clause are almost always in agreement. Thirdly, Jacob Wackernagel discovered the remarkable placement of clitics (unstressed function words, such as and, too, but). Simply put, Wackernagel’s law tells that the clitics almost always occurs second to the first stressed word in a clause. The following table gives examples of a typical Wackernagel clitics placement in many IE languages where the clitics are underlined.


Luwian zam=pa=kuwa DUMU-nin wallindu this=Particle=Particle child they-shall lift They shall lift this child.

Mycenaean Greek da-mo=de=mi pa-si ko-to-na-o ke-ke-me-na-o o-na-to e-ke-e people=but=she say plot communal use have But the people say that she has the use of the communal plot

Old Persian pasāva=maiy Auramazdā upastām abara then-me Ahura-Mazda aid he-brought Then Ahura-Mazda brought me aid.

Wackernagel’s law is not without exception, most notably in WH constructions where the clictics is moved after the WH- word and in pronominalized sentences.


Countries where an Indo-European language is: a primary de facto national or official language a secondary official language officially recognized The approximate present-day distribution of Indo-European languages within the Americas by country: Romance : Spanish Portuguese –Galician French Germanic : English Dutch

Today, Indo-European languages are spoken by almost 3 billion native speakers across all inhabited continents, the largest number by far for any recognised language family. Of the 20 languages with the largest numbers of native speakers according to _Ethnologue_, 11 are Indo-European: Spanish , English , Hindustani , Portuguese , Bengali , Russian , Punjabi , German , French , Marathi , accounting for over 1.7 billion native speakers. 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 between 600,000,000 and 1 billion 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 North and East Asia by the end of the prehistoric era, replacing the previously-spoken pre- Indo-European languages of this extensive area.

Despite being unaware of their common linguistic origin, diverse groups of Indo-European speakers continued to culturally dominate and 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 the entirety of western and central Asia and parts of eastern Europe, and the Indo-Aryan peoples south Asia, with the Tocharians inhabiting the Indo-European frontier in western China. By the medieval period, only the Vasconic , Semitic , Dravidian , Caucasian , ☆Georgian , Basque and Uralic languages 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 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.


* Afroasiatic languages * Grammatical conjugation * _ The Horse, The Wheel and Language _ (book) * Indo-European copula * Indo-European sound laws * Indo-European studies * Indo-European vocabulary * 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


* ^ Hammarström, Harald; Forkel, Robert; Haspelmath, Martin; Bank, Sebastian, eds. (2016). "Indo-European". _ Glottolog 2.7 _. Jena: Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History. * ^ " Ethnologue report for Indo-European". Ethnologue.com. * ^ _A_ _B_ _C_ Auroux, Sylvain (2000). _History of the Language Sciences_. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter. p. 1156. ISBN 3-11-016735-2 . * ^ M. V. Lomonosov (drafts for _Russian Grammar_, published 1755). In: Complete Edition, Moscow, 1952, vol. 7, pp. 652–659: Представимъ долготу времени, которою сіи языки раздѣлились. ... Польской и россійской языкъ коль давно раздѣлились! Подумай же, когда курляндской! Подумай же, когда латинской, греч., нѣм., росс. О глубокая древность! Kurlandic! Think when Latin, Greek, German, and Russian! Oh, great antiquity!] * ^ "Indo-European Practice and Historical Methodology (cited on pp. 14–15)." (PDF). Retrieved 2010-08-07. * ^ 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 .) * ^ Robinson, Andrew (2007). _The Last Man Who Knew Everything: Thomas Young, the Anonymous Genius who Proved Newton Wrong and Deciphered the Rosetta Stone, among Other Surprising Feats_. Penguin. ISBN 0-13-134304-1 . * ^ In _London Quarterly Review_ X/2 1813.; cf. Szemerényi 1999:12, footnote 6 * ^ Franz Bopp (2010) . _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. * ^ Kurylowicz, Jerzy (1927). "ə indo-européen et ḫ hittite". In Taszycki, W.; Doroszewski, W. _Symbolae grammaticae in honorem Ioannis Rozwadowski_. 1. pp. 95–104. * ^ 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). * ^ Curtis, Matthew Cowan. "Slavic-Albanian Language Contact, Convergence, and Coexistence". ProQuest LLC. p. 18. 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 * ^ http://www.leidenuniv.nl/en/researcharchive/index.php3-c=178.htm. Missing or empty title= (help ) * ^ (PDF) http://oi.uchicago.edu/pdf/ar/61-70/65-66/65-66_CHD.pdf. Missing or empty title= (help ) * ^ such as Schleicher 1861, Szemerényi 1957, Collinge 1985, and Beekes 1995 * ^ "Tablet Discovery Pushes Earliest European Writing Back 150 Years". _Science 2.0_. 30 March 2011. * ^ _Indian History_. Allied Publishers. p. 114. ISBN 978-81-8424-568-4 . * ^ Mark, Joshua J. (28 April 2011). "Mitanni". _Ancient History Encyclopedia_. * ^ 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 * ^ Michel Lejeune (1974), _Manuel de la langue vénète._ Heidelberg: Indogermanische Bibliothek, Lehr- und Handbücher. * ^ Julius Pokorny (1959), _Indogermanisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch_. Publisher Bern. * ^ Kruta, Venceslas (1991). _The Celts_. Thames and Hudson. p. 54.

* ^ Fine, John (1985). The ancient Greeks: a critical history. Harvard University Press. p. 72. ISBN 0674033140 . "Most scholars now believe that the Sicans and Sicels, as well as the inhabitants of southern Italy, were basically of Illyrian stock superimposed on an aboriginal 'Mediterranean' population." * ^ François, Alexandre (2014), "Trees, Waves and Linkages: Models of Language Diversification" (PDF), in Bowern, Claire; Evans, Bethwyn, _The Routledge Handbook of Historical Linguistics_, London: Routledge, pp. 161–189, ISBN 978-0-41552-789-7 . * ^ 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. * ^ Meillet, Antoine (1908). _Les dialectes indo-européens_. Paris: Honoré Champion. * ^ Bonfante, Giuliano (1931). _I dialetti indoeuropei_. Brescia: Paideia. * ^ Porzig, Walter (1954). _Die Gliederung des indogermanischen Sprachgebiets_. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag. * ^ Nakhleh, Luay; Ringe, Don ">(PDF). _Language: Journal of the Linguistic Society of America_. 81 (2): 382–420. doi :10.1353/lan.2005.0078 . * ^ Mallory, J.P.; Adams, D.Q. (1997). _Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture_. London: Fitzroy Dearborn. * ^ Porzig 1954 , p. 39. * ^ Fortson 2004 , p. 247. * ^ Watkins, Calvert (1966). " Italo-Celtic revisited". In Birnbaum, Henrik; Puhvel, Jaan. _Ancient Indo-European dialects_. Berkeley: University of California Press. pp. 29–50. * ^ Weiss, Michael (2012). "Italo-Celtica: linguistic and cultural points of contact between Italic and Celtic". In Jamison, Stephanie W.; Melchert, H. Craig; Vine, Brent. _Proceedings of the 23rd annual UCLA Indo-European conference_. Bremen: Hempen. pp. 151–173. * ^ Greppin, James (1996). "Review of _The linguistic relationship between Armenian and Greek_ by James Clackson". _Language_. 72 (4): 804–807. doi :10.2307/416105 . * ^ Euler, Wolfram (1979). _Indoiranisch-griechische Gemeinsamkeiten der Nominalbildung und deren indogermanische Grundlagen_. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck. * ^ Lubotsky – The Old Phrygian Areyastis-inscription, Kadmos 27, 9–26, 1988 * ^ Kortlandt – The Thraco-Armenian consonant shift, Linguistique Balkanique 31, 71–74, 1988 * ^ Renfrew, Colin (1987). _Archaeology & Language. The Puzzle of the Indo-European Origins_. London: Jonathan Cape. ISBN 0-224-02495-7 . * ^ Encyclopædia Britannica, vol.22, Helen Hemingway Benton Publisher, Chicago, (15th ed.) 1981, p. 593 * ^ George S. Lane, Douglas Q. Adams, Britannica 15th edition 22:667, "The Tocharian problem" * ^ 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). * ^ _Britannica_ 15th edition, 22 p. 586 "Indo-European languages, The parent language, Laryngeal theory" – W.C.; p. 589, 593 "Anatolian languages" – Philo H.J. Houwink ten Cate, H. Craig Melchert and Theo P.J. van den Hout * ^ _Britannica_ 15th edition, 22 p. 594, " Indo-Hittite hypothesis" * ^ Holm, Hans J. (2008). "The Distribution of Data in Word Lists and its Impact on the Subgrouping of Languages". In Preisach, Christine; Burkhardt, Hans; Schmidt-Thieme, Lars; et al. _Data Analysis, Machine Learning, and Applications. Proc. of the 31st Annual Conference of the German Classification Society (GfKl), University of Freiburg, March 7–9, 2007_. Studies in Classification, Data Analysis, and Knowledge Organization. Heidelberg-Berlin: Springer-Verlag. ISBN 978-3-540-78239-1 . The result is a partly new chain of separation for the main Indo-European branches, which fits well to the grammatical facts, as well as to the geographical distribution of these branches. In particular it clearly demonstrates that the Anatolian languages did not part as first ones and thereby refutes the Indo-Hittite hypothesis. * ^ _Britannica_ 15th edition, vol.22, 1981, pp. 588, 594 * ^ Kortlandt, Frederik (1989). "The spread of the Indo-Europeans" (PDF). Retrieved 2010-08-07. * ^ _A_ _B_ Anthony 2007 , pp. 56–58. * ^ Ringe 2006 , p. 67. * ^ Anthony 2007 , p. 100. * ^ "Indo-European Languages: Balto-Slavic Family". Utexas.edu. 2008-11-10. Archived from the original on 2011-06-04. Retrieved 2010-08-07. * ^ Ancient Tablet Found: Oldest Readable Writing in Europe * ^ _A_ _B_ _C_ _D_ _E_ _F_ _G_ _H_ Fortson, Benajamin W., IV. Indo-European Language and Culture, an Introduction. Massachusetts, Blackwell Publishing, 2004. * ^ _A_ _B_ _C_ _D_ Clackson, James. Indo-European Linguistics, an Introduction. 5th ed., Cambridge, Cambridge UP, 2013. * ^ Denning, Keith, et al. English Vocabulary Elements. 2nd ed., New York, Oxford UP, 2007. * ^ Fromkin, Victoria, et al. An Introduction to Language. 10th ed., Bostan, Cengage Learning, 2014. * ^ Friedrich, Paul. Proto-Indo-European Syntax- the Order of Meaningful Syntax. Butte, Journal of Indo-European Studies Monograph, 1975. * ^ " Ethnologue list of language families". Ethnologue.com. Retrieved 2010-08-07. * ^ " Ethnologue list of languages by number of speakers". Ethnologue.com. Retrieved 2010-08-07. * ^ "English". Ethnologue . Retrieved January 17, 2017. * ^ "Then Things You Might Not Have Known About the English Language". Oxford Dictionary .


* Anthony, David W. (2007). _The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World_. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-05887-3 . * Auroux, Sylvain (2000). _History of the Language Sciences_. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. ISBN 3-11-016735-2 . * Fortson, Benjamin W. (2004). _Indo-European Language and Culture: An Introduction_. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell. ISBN 1-4051-0315-9 . * Brugmann, Karl (1886). _Grundriss der Vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen_ (in German). Erster Band. Strassburg: Karl J. Trübner. * Houwink ten Cate, H. J.; Melchert, H. Craig & van den Hout, Theo P. J. (1981). "Indo-European languages, The parent language, Laryngeal theory". _Encyclopædia Britannica_. 22 (15th ed.). Chicago: Helen Hemingway Benton. * Holm, Hans J. (2008). "The Distribution of Data in Word Lists and its Impact on the Subgrouping of Languages". In Preisach, Christine; Burkhardt, Hans; Schmidt-Thieme, Lars; et al. _Data Analysis, Machine Learning, and Applications_. Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the German Classification Society (GfKl), University of Freiburg, March 7–9, 2007. Heidelberg-Berlin: Springer-Verlag. ISBN 978-3-540-78239-1 . * Kortlandt, Frederik (1990). "The Spread of the Indo-Europeans" (PDF). _Journal of Indo-European Studies_. 18 (1–2): 131–140. * Lubotsky, A. (1988). "The Old Phrygian Areyastis-inscription". _Kadmos_. 27: 9–26. * Kortlandt, Frederik (1988). "The Thraco-Armenian consonant shift". _Linguistique Balkanique_. 31: 71–74. * Lane, George S.; Adams, Douglas Q. (1981). "The Tocharian problem". _Encyclopædia Britannica_. 22 (15th ed.). Chicago: Helen Hemingway Benton. * Renfrew, C. (2001). "The Anatolian origins of Proto-Indo-European and the autochthony of the Hittites". In Drews, R. _Greater Anatolia and the Indo-Hittite language family_. Washington, DC: Institute for the Study of Man. ISBN 0-941694-77-1 . * Schleicher, August (1861). _Compendium der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen_ (in German). Weimar: Böhlau (reprinted by Minerva GmbH, Wissenschaftlicher Verlag). ISBN 3-8102-1071-4 . * Szemerényi, Oswald ; Jones, David; Jones, Irene (1999). _Introduction to Indo-European Linguistics_. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-823870-3 . * von Bradke, Peter (1890). _Über Methode und Ergebnisse der arischen (indogermanischen) Alterthumswissenshaft_ (in German). Giessen: J. Ricker'che Buchhandlung.


* 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 81-7074-128-9 . * 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 0-500-27616-1 . * Renfrew, Colin (1987). _Archaeology & Language. The Puzzle of the Indo-European Origins_. London: Jonathan Cape. ISBN 0-224-02495-7 . * 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.


_ Wikimedia Commons has media related to INDO-EUROPEAN LANGUAGES _.


_ Wikisource has the text of the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica_ article _INDO-EUROPEAN LANGUAGES _.


* 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