INDO-EUROPEAN LANGUAGES, one of the largest language families of Eurasia, which over the past five centuries has also spread to North and South America, Australia and partly in Africa. Before the Age of Discovery, Indo-European languages ​​occupied the territory from Ireland in the west to East Turkestan in the east and from Scandinavia in the north to India in the south. The Indo-European family includes about 140 languages, spoken by a total of about 2 billion people (2007 estimate), with English occupying the first place in the number of speakers.

The role of the study of Indo-European languages ​​in the development of comparative historical linguistics is important. Indo-European languages ​​were one of the first families of languages ​​of great temporal depth to be postulated by linguists. Other families in science, as a rule, were identified (directly or at least indirectly), focusing on the experience of studying Indo-European languages, just as comparative historical grammars and dictionaries (primarily etymological) for other language families took into account the experience of corresponding works on the material of Indo-European languages ​​for which these works were first created. It was during the study of Indo-European languages ​​that the ideas of a proto-language, regular phonetic correspondences, linguistic reconstruction, and the family tree of languages ​​were first formulated; A comparative historical method has been developed.

Within the Indo-European family, the following branches (groups), including those consisting of one language, are distinguished: Indo-Iranian languages, Greek, Italic languages ​​(including Latin), descendants of Latin, Romance languages, Celtic languages, Germanic languages, Baltic languages, Slavic languages , Armenian language, Albanian language, Hittite-Luwian languages ​​(Anatolian) and Tocharian languages. In addition, it includes a number of extinct languages ​​(known from extremely scarce sources - as a rule, from a few inscriptions, glosses, anthroponyms and toponyms from Greek and Byzantine authors): Phrygian language, Thracian language, Illyrian language, Messapian language, Venetian language, Ancient Macedonian language. These languages ​​cannot be reliably assigned to any of the known branches (groups) and may represent separate branches (groups).

There were undoubtedly other Indo-European languages. Some of them died out without a trace, others left a few traces in toponomastics and substrate vocabulary (see Substrate). Attempts have been made to reconstruct individual Indo-European languages ​​from these traces. The most famous reconstructions of this kind are the Pelasgian language (the language of the pre-Greek population of Ancient Greece) and the Cimmerian language, which supposedly left traces of borrowing in the Slavic and Baltic languages. Identification of a layer of Pelasgian borrowings in the Greek language and Cimmerian ones in the Balto-Slavic languages, based on the establishment of a special system of regular phonetic correspondences, different from those that are characteristic of the original vocabulary, allows us to elevate a whole series of Greek, Slavic and Baltic words that previously had no etymology to Indo-European roots. The specific genetic affiliation of the Pelasgian and Cimmerian languages ​​is difficult to determine.

Over the past few centuries, during the expansion of Indo-European languages ​​on a Germanic and Romance basis, several dozen new languages ​​- pidgins - were formed, some of which were subsequently creolized (see Creole languages) and became fully fledged languages, both grammatically and functionally. These are Tok Pisin, Bislama, Krio in Sierra Leone, Gambia and Equatorial Guinea (on an English basis); Sechelle in the Seychelles, Haitian, Mauritian and Reunion (on Reunion Island in the Indian Ocean; see Creoles) creoles (French-based); Unserdeutsch in Papua New Guinea (on a German basis); palenquero in Colombia (Spanish based); Cabuverdianu, Crioulo (both in Cape Verde) and Papiamento on the islands of Aruba, Bonaire and Curacao (Portuguese based). In addition, some international artificial languages ​​such as Esperanto are Indo-European in nature.

The traditional branching diagram of the Indo-European family is presented in the diagram.

The collapse of the Proto-Indo-European base language dates back to no later than the 4th millennium BC. The greatest antiquity of the separation of the Hittite-Luwian languages ​​is beyond doubt; the time of the separation of the Tocharian branch is more controversial due to the paucity of Tocharian data.

Attempts were made to unite the various Indo-European branches with each other; for example, hypotheses were expressed about the special closeness of the Baltic and Slavic, Italic and Celtic languages. The most generally accepted is the unification of Indo-Aryan languages ​​and Iranian languages ​​(as well as Dardic languages ​​and Nuristan languages) into the Indo-Iranian branch - in some cases it is possible to restore the verbal formulas that existed in the Indo-Iranian proto-language. The Balto-Slavic unity is somewhat more controversial; other hypotheses are rejected in modern science. In principle, different linguistic features divide the Indo-European language space in different ways. Thus, according to the results of the development of Indo-European back-lingual consonants, Indo-European languages ​​are divided into the so-called Satem languages ​​and Centum languages ​​(unions are named after the reflection in different languages ​​of the Proto-Indo-European word “hundred”: in Satem languages ​​its initial sound is reflected in the form of “s”, “sh” and etc., in centum - in the form of “k”, “x”, etc.). The use of different sounds (bh and sh) in case endings divides Indo-European languages ​​into so-called -mi-languages ​​(Germanic, Baltic, Slavic) and -bhi-languages ​​(Indo-Iranian, Italic, Greek). Different indicators of the passive voice are united, on the one hand, by Italic, Celtic, Phrygian and Tocharian languages ​​(indicator -g), on the other - Greek and Indo-Iranian languages ​​(indicator -i). The presence of an augment (a special verbal prefix that conveys the meaning of the past tense) contrasts Greek, Phrygian, Armenian and Indo-Iranian languages ​​with all others. For almost any pair of Indo-European languages, you can find a number of common linguistic features and lexemes that will be absent in other languages; The so-called wave theory was based on this observation (see Genealogical classification of languages). A. Meillet proposed the above scheme of dialect division of the Indo-European community.

The reconstruction of the Indo-European proto-language is facilitated by the presence of a sufficient number of ancient written monuments in the languages ​​of different branches of the Indo-European family: from the 17th century BC, monuments of the Hittite-Luvian languages ​​are known, from the 14th century BC - Greek, dates back to approximately the 12th century BC (recorded significantly later) the language of the hymns of the Rig Veda, by the 6th century BC - monuments of the ancient Persian language, from the end of the 7th century BC - the Italic languages. In addition, some languages ​​that received writing much later retained a number of archaic features.

The main consonant correspondences in the languages ​​of different branches of the Indo-European family are shown in the table.

In addition, the so-called laryngeal consonants are restored - partly on the basis of the consonants h, hh attested in the Hittite-Luwian languages, and partly on the basis of systemic considerations. The number of laryngeals, as well as their exact phonetic interpretation, varies among researchers. The structure of the system of Indo-European stop consonants is presented unequally in different works: some scientists believe that the Indo-European proto-language distinguished between voiceless, voiced and voiced aspirated consonants (this point of view is presented in the table), others suggest a contrast between voiceless, aberrant and voiced or voiceless, strong and voiced consonants (in the last two concepts, aspiration is an optional feature of both voiced and voiceless consonants), etc. There is also a point of view according to which in the Indo-European proto-language there were 4 series of stops: voiced, voiceless, voiced aspirate and voiceless aspirate - just as is the case, for example, in Sanskrit.

The reconstructed Indo-European proto-language appears, like the ancient Indo-European languages, as a language with a developed case system, rich verbal morphology, and complex accentuation. Both the name and the verb have 3 numbers - singular, dual and plural. The problem for the reconstruction of a number of grammatical categories in the Proto-Indo-European language is the lack of corresponding forms in the oldest Indo-European languages ​​- Hittite-Luwian: this state of affairs may indicate either that these categories developed in Proto-Indo-European quite late, after the separation of the Hittite-Luwian branch, or that the Hittite-Luwian languages ​​underwent significant changes in their grammatical system.

The Indo-European proto-language is characterized by rich possibilities of word formation, including word composition; using reduplication. Alternations of sounds were widely represented in it - both automatic and those performing a grammatical function.

The syntax was characterized, in particular, by the agreement of adjectives and demonstrative pronouns with qualified nouns by gender, number and case, and the use of enclitic particles (placed after the first fully stressed word in a sentence; see Clitics). The word order in the sentence was probably free [perhaps the preferred order was “subject (S) + direct object (O) + predicate verb (V)”].

Ideas about the Proto-Indo-European language continue to be revised and clarified in a number of aspects - this is due, firstly, to the emergence of new data (a special role was played by the discovery of the Anatolian and Tocharian languages ​​in the late 19th - early 20th centuries), and secondly, to the expansion of knowledge about the structure human language in general.

The reconstruction of the Proto-Indo-European lexical fund makes it possible to judge the culture of the Proto-Indo-Europeans, as well as their ancestral homeland (see Indo-Europeans).

According to the theory of V. M. Illich-Svitych, the Indo-European family is an integral part of the so-called Nostratic macrofamily (see Nostratic languages), which makes it possible to verify the Indo-European reconstruction by external comparison data.

The typological diversity of Indo-European languages ​​is great. Among them there are languages ​​with a basic word order: SVO, such as Russian or English; SOV, such as many Indo-Iranian languages; VSO, such as Irish [compare the Russian sentence “The father praises the son” and its translations in Hindi - pita bete kl tarif karta hai (literally - 'The father of the son who gives praise is') and in Irish - Moraionn an tathar a mhac (literally - 'A father praises his son')]. Some Indo-European languages ​​use prepositions, others use postpositions [compare Russian “near the house” and Bengali baritar kache (literally “near the house”)]; some are nominative (like the languages ​​of Europe; see Nominative structure), others have an ergative construction (for example, in Hindi; see Ergative structure); some retained a significant part of the Indo-European case system (like Baltic and Slavic), others lost cases (for example, English), others (Tocharian) developed new cases from postpositions; some tend to express grammatical meanings within a significant word (synthetism), others - with the help of special function words (analyticism), etc. In Indo-European languages ​​one can find such phenomena as izafet (in Iranian), group inflection (in Tocharian), and the opposition of inclusive and exclusive (Tok Pisin).

Modern Indo-European languages ​​use scripts based on the Greek alphabet (languages ​​of Europe; see Greek script), Brahmi script (Indo-Aryan language; see Indian script), and some Indo-European languages ​​use scripts of Semitic origin. For a number of ancient languages, cuneiform (Hittite-Luwian, Old Persian) and hieroglyphics (Luwian hieroglyphic language) were used; The ancient Celts used the Ogham alphabetic writing.

Lit. : Brugmann K., Delbrück V. Grundriß der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen. 2. Aufl. Strasbourg, 1897-1916. Bd 1-2; Indogermanische Grammatik / Hrsg. J. Kurylowicz. Hdlb., 1968-1986. Bd 1-3; Semereni O. Introduction to comparative linguistics. M., 1980; Gamkrelidze T.V., Ivanov Vyach. Sun. Indo-European language and Indo-Europeans: Reconstruction and historical-typological analysis of the proto-language and protoculture. Tb., 1984. Part 1-2; Beekes R. S. R. Comparative Indo-European linguistics. Amst., 1995; Meillet A. Introduction to the comparative study of Indo-European languages. 4th ed., M., 2007. Dictionaries: Schrader O. Reallexikon der indogermanischen Altertumskunde. 2. Aufl. IN.; Lpz., 1917-1929. Bd 1-2; Pokorny J. Indoger-manisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Bern; Münch., 1950-1969. Lfg 1-18.

The problem of reconstruction of the occipital

• At the dawn of Indo-European studies, relying mainly on data from Sanskrit, scientists reconstructed a four-row system of stop consonants for the Proto-Indo-European language:

This scheme was followed by K. Brugman, A. Leskin, A. Meie, O. Semerenyi, G.A. Ilyinsky, F.F. Fortunatov.

• Later, when it became obvious that Sanskrit was not equivalent to the proto-language, suspicions arose that this reconstruction was unreliable. Indeed, there were quite a few examples that made it possible to reconstruct a series of voiceless aspirates. Some of them were of onomatopoeic origin. The remaining cases, after F. de Saussure put forward the laryngeal theory, brilliantly confirmed after the discovery of the Hittite language, were explained as reflexes of combinations of voiceless stop + laryngeal.

Then the stop system was reinterpreted:

• But this reconstruction also had drawbacks. The first drawback was that the reconstruction of a series of voiced aspirates in the absence of a series of voiceless aspirates is typologically unreliable. The second drawback was that in Proto-Indo-European b there were only three rather unreliable examples. This reconstruction could not explain this fact.

A new stage was the nomination in 1972 of T.V. Gamkrelidze and V.V. Ivanov's glottal theory (and independently of them by P. Hopper in 1973). This scheme was based on the shortcomings of the previous one:

This theory made it possible to interpret the laws of Grassmann and Bartholomew differently, and also gave a new meaning to Grimm’s law. However, this scheme also seemed imperfect to many scientists. In particular, it suggests for the late Proto-Indo-European period the transition of glottalized consonants to voiced ones, despite the fact that glottalized ones are rather unvoiced sounds.

• The latest reinterpretation was made by V.V. Shevoroshkin, who suggested that Proto-Indo-European did not have glottalized ones, but “strong” stops, which are found in some Caucasian languages. This type of stop can actually be voiced.

The problem of the number of guttural rows

If the reconstruction of the Proto-Indo-European language were based solely on data from the Indo-Iranian, Baltic, Slavic, Armenian and Albanian languages, then it would be necessary to admit that in Proto-Indo-European there were two series of gutturals - simple and palatalized.

But if the reconstruction were based on data from the Celtic, Italic, Germanic, Tocharian and Greek languages, then the other two series would have to be accepted - guttural simple and labialized.

The languages ​​of the first group (Satem) do not have labializations, and the languages ​​of the second group (Centum) do not have palatalizations. Accordingly, a compromise in this situation is to accept three series of gutturals for the Proto-Indo-European language (simple, palatalized and labialized). However, such a concept runs into a typological argument: there are no living languages ​​in which such a guttural system would exist.

There is a theory that suggests that the situation in the Centum languages ​​is primordial, and the Satem languages ​​palatalized the old simple guttural ones, while the old labialized ones changed into simple ones.

The opposite hypothesis to the previous one states that in Proto-Indo-European there were simple guttural and palatalized ones. At the same time, in Centum languages, simple ones became labialized, and palatalized ones became depalatalized.

And finally, there are supporters of the theory according to which in Proto-Indo-European there was only one series of gutturals - simple.

Problems of reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European spirants

It is traditionally believed that Proto-Indo-European had only one spirant s, the allophone of which in position before voiced consonants was z. Three different attempts were made by different linguists to increase the number of spirants in the reconstruction of the Proto-Indo-European language:

• The first attempt was made by Karl Brugman. See Brugman's article Spiranta.
• The second was undertaken by E. Benveniste. He attempted to assign an affricate c to the Indo-European language. The attempt was unsuccessful.
• T.V. Gamkrelidze and V.V. Ivanov, based on a small number of examples, postulated a series of spirants for Proto-Indo-European: s - s" - s w.

The problem of the number of laryngeal

The laryngeal theory in its original form was put forward by F. de Saussure in his work “Article on the original vowel system in Indo-European languages.” F. de Saussure blamed some alternations in Sanskrit suffixes on a certain “sonantic coefficient” unknown to any living Indo-European language. After the discovery and decipherment of the Hittite language, Jerzy Kurylowicz identified the “sonantic coefficient” with the laryngeal phoneme of the Hittite language, since in the Hittite language this laryngal was exactly where the “sonantic coefficient” was located according to Saussure. It was also found that the laryngals, being lost, actively influenced the quantity and quality of neighboring Proto-Indo-European vowels. However, at the moment there is no consensus among scientists regarding the number of laryngeals in Proto-Indo-European. The estimates vary over a very wide range - from one to ten.

Traditional reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European phonetics

• Short vowels a, e, i, o, u
• Long vowels ā, ē, ō, ī, ū .
• Diphthongs ai, au, āi, āu, ei, eu, ēi, ēu, oi, ou, ōi, ōu
• Vowel allophones of sonants: u, i, r̥, l̥, m̥, n̥.

Grammar

Language structure

Almost all modern and known ancient Indo-European languages ​​are nominative languages. However, many experts hypothesize that the Proto-Indo-European language in the early stages of its development was an active language; Subsequently, the names of the active class became masculine and feminine, and those of the inactive class became neuter. This is evidenced, in particular, by the complete coincidence of the forms of the nominative and accusative cases of the neuter gender. The division of nouns in the Russian language into animate and inanimate (with the coincidence of the nominative and accusative case of inanimate nouns in many forms) is also perhaps a distant reflex of the active structure. To the greatest extent, remnants of the active system have been preserved in the Aryan languages; in other Indo-European languages, the division into active and passive is rigid. Constructions resembling active construction in modern English (he sells a book - he sells a book, but a book sells at $20 - a book is sold for 20 dollars) are secondary and not directly inherited from Proto-Indo-European.

Noun

Nouns in Proto-Indo-European had eight cases: nominative, accusative, genitive, dative, instrumental, disjunctive, locative, vocative; three grammatical numbers: singular, dual and plural. It was generally believed that there were three genders: masculine, feminine and neuter. However, the discovery of the Hittite language, in which there are only two genders ("general" or "animate") and neuter, cast doubt on this. Various hypotheses have been put forward about when and how the feminine gender appeared in Indo-European languages.

Table of noun endings:

Pronoun

Table of declension of personal pronouns:

The 1st and 2nd person pronouns did not differ in gender (this feature is preserved in all other Indo-European languages). Personal pronouns of the 3rd person were absent in the Proto-Indo-European language and various demonstrative pronouns were used instead.

Verb

Table of verb endings:

Numerals

Some cardinal numbers (masculine) are listed below:

Examples of texts

Attention! These examples are written in a form adapted to the standard Latin alphabet and reflect only one of the reconstruction options. Translations of texts are largely speculative, are of no interest to specialists and do not reflect the subtleties of pronunciation. They are placed here solely for demonstration and to get an initial idea of ​​the language.

Ovis ecvosque (Sheep and horse)

(Schleicher's Tale)

Gorei ovis, quesuo vlana ne est, ecvons especet, oinom ghe guerom voghom veghontum, oinomque megam bhorom, oinomque ghmenum ocu bherontum. Ovis nu ecvobhos eveghuet: "Cer aghnutoi moi, ecvons agontum manum, nerm videntei." Ecvos to evequont: “Cludhi, ovei, cer ghe aghnutoi nasmei videntibhos: ner, potis, oviom egh vulnem sebhi nevo ghuermom vestrom cvergneti; neghi oviom vulne esti.” Tod cecleus ovis agrom ebheguet.

• Approximate translation:

On the mountain, a sheep that had no wool saw horses: one was carrying a heavy cart, one was carrying a large load, one was quickly carrying a man. The sheep says to the horses: “My heart burns when I see horses carrying people, men.” The horse replies: “Listen, sheep, our hearts also burn when we see a man, a craftsman making new warm clothes for himself from sheep’s wool; and the sheep remains without wool.” Hearing this, the sheep in the field ran away.

Regs deivosque (King and God)

Version 1

Potis ghe est. Soque negenetos est. Sunumque evelt. So gheuterem precet: “Sunus moi gueniotam!” Gheuter nu potim veghuet: “Iecesuo ghi deivom Verunom.” Upo pro potisque deivom sesore deivomque iecto. "Cludhi moi, deive Verune!" So nu cata divos guomt. “Quid velsi?” "Velnemi sunum." "Tod estu", vequet leucos deivos. Potenia ghi sunum gegone.

Version 2

To regs est. So nepotlus est. So regs sunum evelt. So tosuo gheuterem precet: “Sunus moi gueniotam!” So gheuter tom reguem eveghuet: “Iecesuo deivom Verunom.” So regs deivom Verunom upo sesore nu deivom iecto. "Cludhi moi, pater Verune!" Deivos verunos cata divos eguomt. “Quid velsi?” "Velmi sunum." "Tod estu", veghuet leucos deivos Verunos. Regos potenia sunum gegone.

• Approximate translation:

Once upon a time there lived a king. But he was childless. And the king wanted a son. And he asked the priest: “I want a son to be born to me!” The priest answers that king: “Turn to the god Varuna.” And the king came to the god Varuna to make a request to him. "Listen to me, Varun's father!" God Varuna descended from heaven. "What you want?" "I want a son." “So be it,” said the radiant god Varuna. The king's wife gave birth to a son.

Pater naseros

Version 1

Pater naseros cemeni, nomen tovos estu cventos, reguom tevem guemoit ad nas, veltos tevem cvergeto cemeni ertique, edom naserom agheres do nasmebhos aghei tosmei le todque agosnes nasera, so lemos scelobhos naserobhos. Neque peretod nas, tou tratod nas apo peuces. Teve senti reguom, maghti decoromque bhegh antom. Estod.

Version 2

Pater naseros cemeni, nomen tovos estu iseros, reguom tevem guemoit ad nasmens, ghuelonom tevom cvergeto cemeni ed eri, edom naserom agheres do nasmebhos tosmei aghei ed le agosnes nasera, so lemos scelobhos naserobhos. Neque gvedhe nasmens bhi perendom, tou bhegue nasmens melguod. Teve senti reguom, maghti ed decorom eneu antom. Estod.

• Approximate translation:

Our heavenly Father, hallowed be your name, may your kingdom come over us, your will be done in heaven and on earth, give us our daily food this day, and forgive our debts, as we forgive our debtors. Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. Yours is the kingdom, the power and the glory without end. Amen.

Aquan Nepot

Puros esiem. Deivons aisiem. Aquan Nepot dverbhos me rues! Meg moris me gherdmi. Deivos, tebherm gheumi. Vicpoteis tebherm gheumi. Ansues tebherm guemi. Nasmei guertins dedemi! Ad bherome deivobhos ci sime guerenti! Dotores vesvom, nas nasmei creddhemes. Aquan Nepot, dverons sceledhi! Dghom Mater toi gheumes! Dghemia Mater, tebhiom gheumes! Meg moris nas gherdmi. Eghuies, nasmei sercemes.

• Approximate translation:

Cleaning myself up. I worship the gods. Son of Water, open the doors for me! The big sea surrounds me. I make offerings to the gods. I make offerings to my ancestors. I make offerings to the spirits. Thank you! We are here to honor the gods. Donors to the gods, we have dedicated our hearts to you. Son of Water, open the doors for us! Mother of the Earth, we worship you! We make offerings to you! We are surrounded by a large sea. (...)

Marie

Decta esies, Mari plena gusteis, arios com tvoio esti, guerta enter guenai ed guertos ogos esti tovi bhermi, Iese. Isere Mari, deivosuo mater, meldhe nobhei agosorbhos nu dictique naseri merti. Estod.

• Approximate translation:

Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you, blessed among women and blessed is the Fruit of your womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. Amen.

Creddheo

Creddheo deivom, paterom duom dheterom cemenes ertique, Iesom Christomque sunum sovom pregenetom, ariom naserom. Ansus iserod tectom guenios Mariam genetom. (...) ad lendhem mertvos, vitero genetom agheni tritoi necubhos, uposteightom en cemenem. Sedeti decsteroi deivosuo pateronos. Creddheo ansum iserom, eclesiam catholicam iseram, (…) iserom, (…) agosom ed guivum eneu antom. Decos esiet patorei sunumque ansumque iseroi, agroi ed nu, ed eneu antom ad aivumque. Estod.

• Approximate translation:

I believe in God, the Almighty Father, creator of heaven and earth, and Jesus Christ, his own Son, our Lord. By the conception of the Holy Spirit the Virgin Mary was born. (...) to the ground dead, and resurrected on the third day after death, ascended into heaven, sat down to the right of God his Father. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy Catholic Church, (...) saints, (the remission of) sins and life without end. Glory to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit equally, now and without end and forever. Amen

see also

An ancient language from which the languages ​​belonging to this family of languages ​​arose (Latin in relation to the Romance languages: French, Italian, Spanish, Romanian, etc.). A proto-language not recorded in writing (for example, Indo-European... ... Big Encyclopedic Dictionary

A; m. Lingu. An ancient language common to a group of related languages ​​and theoretically reconstructed based on comparison of these languages. ◁ Proto-language, oh, oh. Linguistic Second theory. First forms. * * * proto-language is an ancient language from which languages ​​arose... ... encyclopedic Dictionary

- (language basis). The oldest of related languages, reconstructed by applying the comparative historical method, conceived as the source of all languages ​​\u200b\u200bconstituting a common family (group) and developed on its basis. Proto-Indo-European language... ... Dictionary of linguistic terms

INDO-EUROPEAN, oh, oh. 1. see Indo-Europeans. 2. Relating to the Indo-Europeans, their origin, languages, national character, way of life, culture, as well as the territories and places of their residence, their internal structure, history; such,… … Ozhegov's Explanatory Dictionary

Parent language- (base language) a language from whose dialects a group of related languages ​​originated, otherwise called a family (see Genealogical classification of languages). From the point of view of the formal apparatus of comparative historical linguistics, each unit of the proto-language... Linguistic encyclopedic dictionary

The I. proto-language in the era before its division into separate I. languages ​​had the following consonant sounds. A. Explosive, or explosive. Labials: voiceless p and voiced b; anterior lingual teeth: voiceless t and voiced d; posterior lingual anterior and palatal: deaf. k1 and... ...

Basic language, protolanguage, term denoting the hypothetical state of a group or family of related languages, reconstructed on the basis of a system of correspondences that are established between languages ​​in the field of phonetics, grammar and semantics... ... Great Soviet Encyclopedia

In the era before its division into separate languages, the I. proto-language had the following vowel sounds: i î, and û, e ê, o ô, a â, and an indefinite vowel. In addition, in certain cases, the role of vowel sounds was played by smooth consonants r, l and nasal n, t... ... Encyclopedic Dictionary F.A. Brockhaus and I.A. Efron

Aya, oh. ◊ Indo-European languages. Linguistic The general name for a large group of modern and ancient related languages ​​of Asia and Europe, to which belong the languages ​​Indian, Iranian, Greek, Slavic, Baltic, Germanic, Celtic, Romance and... encyclopedic Dictionary

proto-language- The common ancestor of these languages ​​discovered through the comparative study of related languages ​​(see Relatedness of languages). These are, for example, P. common Slavic, or Proto-Slavic, from which all Slavic languages ​​(Russian, Polish, Serbian, etc.) originated... ... Grammar Dictionary: Grammar and linguistic terms

Produced by the Archaeological Institute of America, it invited visitors to its website to hear what speech sounded like in the Indo-European proto-language. The reconstruction was prepared and narrated by comparativist Andrew Byrd from the University of Kentucky.

Bird used two texts that are already known in Indo-European studies. The first, the fable “Sheep and Horses,” was published in 1868 by one of the pioneers of the reconstruction of the Indo-European proto-language, August Schleicher. Schleicher held optimistic views on the results of proto-linguistic reconstruction. He wrote that the Indo-European proto-language “is completely known to us,” and, apparently, was sure that the fable he wrote would be easily understood by the ancient Indo-Europeans.

Subsequently, comparativists began to evaluate proto-linguistic reconstruction more reservedly. They understood better than Schleicher the complexity of reconstructing a coherent text, and most importantly, they understood some of the conventions of the reconstructed proto-language. They understood the difficulty of synchronizing reconstructed linguistic phenomena (after all, the proto-language changed over time), and the dialectal heterogeneity of the proto-language, and the fact that some elements of the proto-language might not be reflected in the descendant languages, which means it is impossible to reconstruct them.

However, from time to time linguists offer updated versions of the text of Schleicher's fable, taking into account the latest achievements of comparative historical phonetics and grammar of Indo-European languages. The text proved to be a convenient way to demonstrate the development of Indo-European reconstruction.

The second text is called “The King and God.” It is based on an episode from the ancient Indian treatise " Aitareya-brahmana", where the king asks god Varuna to give him a son. Calcutta University professor Subhadra Kumar Sen invited a number of leading Indo-Europeanists to write a “translation” of the text into the Indo-European proto-language. The results were published in the Journal of Indo-European Studies in 1994. The purpose of the survey was to demonstrate with visual material the differences in the views of scientists on the Indo-European language. Sometimes the differences concerned not only phonetics or morphology of the language. For example, Eric Hamp chose instead of the god Verunos (Varuna) to mention another - Lughus (known in Irish mythology as Lugh), apparently considering that Varuna is not reliably reconstructed at the Proto-Indo-European level.

Despite the entertaining nature of such experiments, one should not forget all the conventions of the proposed texts, and, moreover, their sound appearance.

"Sheep and horses"

The sheep, [on] which there was no wool, saw horses: one carrying a heavy cart, another with a large load, the third quickly carrying a man. The sheep said to the horses: My heart swells when I see the horses carrying a man. The horses said: listen, sheep, my heart is aching [from] what I saw: man, the master, makes the wool of the sheep warm clothing [for] himself, and [the] sheep have no wool. Hearing this, the sheep turned [to] the field.

This is what the Indo-European text of the fable should have looked like, according to August Schleicher.

Avis akvāsas ka

Avis, jasmin varnā na ā ast, dadarka akvams, tam, vāgham garum vaghantam, tam, bhāram magham, tam, manum āku bharantam. Avis akvabhjams ā vavakat: kard aghnutai mai vidanti manum akvams agantam. Akvāsas ā vavakant: krudhi avai, kard aghnutai vividvant-svas: manus patis varnām avisāms karnauti svabhjam gharmam vastram avibhjams ka varnā na asti. Tat kukruvants avis agram ā bhugat.

This version in 1979 by Winfred Lehmann and Ladislav Zgusta:

Owis eḱwōskʷe

Gʷərēi owis, kʷesjo wl̥hnā ne ēst, eḱwōns espeḱet, oinom ghe gʷr̥um woǵhom weǵhontm̥, oinomkʷe meǵam bhorom, oinomkʷe ǵhm̥enm̥ ōḱu bherontm̥. Owis nu eḱwobh(j)os (eḱwomos) ewewkʷet: "Ḱēr aghnutoi moi eḱwōns aǵontm̥ nerm̥ widn̥tei". Eḱwōs tu ewewkʷont: "Ḱludhi, owei, ḱēr ghe aghnutoi n̥smei widn̥tbh(j)os (widn̥tmos): nēr, potis, owiōm r̥ wl̥hnām sebhi gʷhermom westrom kʷrn̥euti. m wl̥hnā esti". Tod ḱeḱluwōs owis aǵrom ebhuget.

But this text of the fable “Sheep and Horses” was voiced by Bird:

H 2 óu̯is h 1 éḱu̯ōs-k w e

h 2 áu̯ei̯ h 1 i̯osméi̯ h 2 u̯l̥h 1 náh 2 né h 1 est, só h 1 éḱu̯oms derḱt. só g w r̥h x úm u̯óǵ h om u̯eǵ h ed; só méǵh 2 m̥ b h órom; só d h ǵ h émonm̥ h 2 ṓḱu b h ered. h 2 óu̯is h 1 ék w oi̯b h i̯os u̯eu̯ked: “d h ǵ h émonm̥ spéḱi̯oh 2 h 1 éḱu̯oms-k w e h 2 áǵeti, ḱḗr moi̯ ag h nutor.” h 1 éḱu̯ōs tu u̯eu̯kond: “ḱlud h í, h 2 ou̯ei̯! tód spéḱi̯omes, n̥sméi̯ ag h nutór ḱḗr: d h ǵ h émō, pótis, sē h 2 áu̯i̯es h 2 u̯l̥h 1 náh 2 g wh érmom u̯éstrom u̯ept, h 2 áu̯ib h os tu h 2 u̯l̥h 1 náh 2 né h 1 esti. tód ḱeḱluu̯ṓs h 2 óu̯is h 2 aǵróm b h uged.

"The King and God"

Once upon a time there lived a king. He had no children. The king wanted a son. He asked the priest: “Let my son be born!” The priest said to the king: “Pray to the god Verunos.” The king turned to the god Verunos with a prayer: “Hear me, Father Verunos.” God Verunos descended from heaven: “What do you want?” - “I want a son” - “So be it,” said the shining god Verunos. The king's wife gave birth to a son.

This reconstruction option was used by Andrew Bird:

H 3 rḗḱs dei̯u̯ós-k w e

H 3 rḗḱs h 1 est; so nputlos. H 3 rḗḱs súh x num u̯l̥nh 1 to. Tósi̯o ǵʰéu̯torm̥ prēḱst: "Súh x nus moi̯ ǵn̥h 1 i̯etōd!" Ǵʰéu̯tōr tom h 3 rḗǵm̥ u̯eu̯ked: "h 1 i̯áǵesu̯o dei̯u̯óm U̯érunom". Úpo h 3 rḗḱs dei̯u̯óm U̯érunom sesole nú dei̯u̯óm h 1 i̯aǵeto. "ḱludʰí moi, pter U̯erune!" Dei̯u̯ós U̯érunos diu̯és km̥tá gʷah 2 t. "Kʷíd u̯ēlh 1 si?" "Súh x num u̯ēlh 1 mi." "Tód h 1 estu", u̯éu̯ked leu̯kós dei̯u̯ós U̯érunos. Nu h 3 réḱs pótnih 2 súh x num ǵeǵonh 1 e.

The Indo-European branch of languages ​​is one of the largest in Eurasia. Over the past 5 centuries, it has also spread to South and North America, Australia and partly in Africa. Indo-European languages ​​before occupied the territory from East Turkestan, located in the east, to Ireland in the west, from India in the south to Scandinavia in the north. This family includes about 140 languages. In total, they are spoken by approximately 2 billion people (2007 estimate). occupies a leading place among them in terms of the number of speakers.

The importance of Indo-European languages ​​in comparative historical linguistics

In the development of comparative historical linguistics, the role that belongs to the study of Indo-European languages ​​is important. The fact is that their family was one of the first that scientists identified as having greater temporal depth. As a rule, in science other families were identified, focusing directly or indirectly on the experience gained in the study of Indo-European languages.

Ways to Compare Languages

Languages ​​can be compared in various ways. Typology is one of the most common of them. This is the study of types of linguistic phenomena, as well as the discovery on this basis of universal patterns that exist at different levels. However, this method is not applicable genetically. In other words, it cannot be used to study languages ​​in terms of their origin. The main role for comparative studies should be played by the concept of kinship, as well as the methodology for establishing it.

Genetic classification of Indo-European languages

It is an analogue of the biological one, on the basis of which various groups of species are distinguished. Thanks to it, we can systematize many languages, of which there are approximately six thousand. Having identified patterns, we can reduce this entire set to a relatively small number of language families. The results obtained as a result of genetic classification are invaluable not only for linguistics, but also for a number of other related disciplines. They are especially important for ethnography, since the emergence and development of various languages ​​is closely related to ethnogenesis (the emergence and development of ethnic groups).

Indo-European languages ​​suggest that the differences between them increased over time. This can be expressed in such a way that the distance between them increases, which is measured as the length of the branches or arrows of the tree.

Branches of the Indo-European family

The family tree of Indo-European languages ​​has many branches. It distinguishes both large groups and those consisting of only one language. Let's list them. These are Modern Greek, Indo-Iranian, Italic (including Latin), Romance, Celtic, Germanic, Slavic, Baltic, Albanian, Armenian, Anatolian (Hittite-Luvian) and Tocharian. In addition, it includes a number of extinct ones that are known to us from scanty sources, mainly from a few glosses, inscriptions, toponyms and anthroponyms from Byzantine and Greek authors. These are Thracian, Phrygian, Messapian, Illyrian, Ancient Macedonian, and Venetic languages. They cannot be attributed with complete certainty to one group (branch) or another. Perhaps they should be separated into independent groups (branches), making up a family tree of Indo-European languages. Scientists do not have a consensus on this issue.

Of course, there were other Indo-European languages ​​besides those listed above. Their fate was different. Some of them died out without a trace, others left behind a few traces in substrate vocabulary and toponomastics. Attempts have been made to reconstruct some Indo-European languages ​​from these scanty traces. The most famous reconstructions of this kind include the Cimmerian language. He supposedly left traces in the Baltic and Slavic. Also worth noting is Pelagic, which was spoken by the pre-Greek population of Ancient Greece.

Pidgins

During the expansion of various languages ​​of the Indo-European group that occurred over the past centuries, dozens of new pidgins were formed on a Romance and Germanic basis. They are characterized by a radically reduced vocabulary (1.5 thousand words or less) and simplified grammar. Subsequently, some of them were creolized, while others became full-fledged both functionally and grammatically. Such are Bislama, Tok Pisin, Krio in Sierra Leone, and Gambia; Sechelwa in the Seychelles; Mauritian, Haitian and Reunion, etc.

As an example, let us give a brief description of two languages ​​of the Indo-European family. The first of them is Tajik.

Tajik

It belongs to the Indo-European family, the Indo-Iranian branch and the Iranian group. It is the state name in Tajikistan and is widespread in Central Asia. Together with the Dari language, the literary idiom of the Afghan Tajiks, it belongs to the eastern zone of the New Persian dialect continuum. This language can be considered a variant of Persian (northeastern). Mutual understanding is still possible between those who use the Tajik language and the Persian-speaking residents of Iran.

Ossetian

It belongs to the Indo-European languages, the Indo-Iranian branch, the Iranian group and the Eastern subgroup. The Ossetian language is widespread in South and North Ossetia. The total number of speakers is about 450-500 thousand people. It contains traces of ancient contacts with the Slavic, Turkic and Finno-Ugric. The Ossetian language has 2 dialects: Iron and Digor.

Collapse of the base language

No later than the fourth millennium BC. e. There was a collapse of the single Indo-European base language. This event led to the emergence of many new ones. Figuratively speaking, the family tree of Indo-European languages ​​began to grow from the seed. There is no doubt that the Hittite-Luwian languages ​​were the first to separate. The timing of the identification of the Tocharian branch is the most controversial due to the paucity of data.

Attempts to merge different branches

The Indo-European language family includes numerous branches. More than once attempts have been made to unite them with each other. For example, hypotheses have been expressed that the Slavic and Baltic languages ​​are especially close. The same was assumed in relation to the Celtic and Italic ones. Today, the most generally accepted is the unification of the Iranian and Indo-Aryan languages, as well as Nuristan and Dardic, into the Indo-Iranian branch. In some cases, it was even possible to restore verbal formulas characteristic of the Indo-Iranian proto-language.

As you know, the Slavs belong to the Indo-European language family. However, it has not yet been established precisely whether their languages ​​should be separated into a separate branch. The same applies to the Baltic peoples. Balto-Slavic unity causes a lot of controversy in such a union as the Indo-European language family. Its peoples cannot be unambiguously attributed to one branch or another.

As for other hypotheses, they are completely rejected in modern science. Different features can form the basis for the division of such a large association as the Indo-European language family. The peoples who are speakers of one or another of its languages ​​are numerous. Therefore, it is not so easy to classify them. Various attempts have been made to create a coherent system. For example, according to the results of the development of back-lingual Indo-European consonants, all languages ​​of this group were divided into centum and satem. These associations are named after the word “hundred”. In satem languages, the initial sound of this Proto-Indo-European word is reflected in the form of “sh”, “s”, etc. As for centum languages, it is characterized by “x”, “k”, etc.

The first comparativists

The emergence of comparative historical linguistics itself dates back to the beginning of the 19th century and is associated with the name of Franz Bopp. In his work, he was the first to scientifically prove the kinship of Indo-European languages.

The first comparativists were Germans by nationality. These are F. Bopp, J. Zeiss, and others. They first noticed that Sanskrit (an ancient Indian language) is very similar to German. They proved that some Iranian, Indian and European languages ​​have a common origin. These scholars then united them into the "Indo-Germanic" family. After some time, it was established that Slavic and Baltic languages ​​were also of exceptional importance for the reconstruction of the parent language. This is how a new term appeared - “Indo-European languages”.

The merit of August Schleicher

August Schleicher (his photo is presented above) in the mid-19th century summarized the achievements of his comparative predecessors. He described in detail each subgroup of the Indo-European family, in particular its oldest state. The scientist proposed to use the principles of reconstruction of a common proto-language. He had no doubt at all about the correctness of his own reconstruction. Schleicher even wrote the text in Proto-Indo-European, which he reconstructed. This is the fable "The Sheep and the Horses".

Comparative historical linguistics was formed as a result of the study of various related languages, as well as the processing of methods for proving their relationship and the reconstruction of a certain initial proto-linguistic state. August Schleicher is credited with schematically depicting the process of their development in the form of a family tree. The Indo-European group of languages ​​appears in the following form: a trunk - and groups of related languages ​​are branches. The family tree has become a visual representation of distant and close relationships. In addition, it indicated the presence of a common proto-language among closely related ones (Balto-Slavic - among the ancestors of the Balts and Slavs, German-Slavic - among the ancestors of the Balts, Slavs and Germans, etc.).

A modern study by Quentin Atkinson

More recently, an international team of biologists and linguists has established that the Indo-European group of languages ​​originated from Anatolia (Türkiye).

It is she, from their point of view, that is the birthplace of this group. The research was led by Quentin Atkinson, a biologist from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. Scientists have applied methods that were used to study the evolution of species to analyze various Indo-European languages. They analyzed the vocabulary of 103 languages. In addition, they studied data on their historical development and geographic distribution. Based on this, the researchers made the following conclusion.

Consideration of cognates

How did these scientists study the language groups of the Indo-European family? They looked at the cognates. These are cognates that have a similar sound and common origin in two or more languages. They are usually words that are less subject to changes in the process of evolution (denoting family relationships, names of body parts, as well as pronouns). Scientists compared the number of cognates in different languages. Based on this, they determined the degree of their relationship. Thus, cognates were likened to genes, and mutations were likened to the differences of cognates.

Use of historical information and geographic data

Then scientists resorted to historical data about the time when the divergence of languages ​​supposedly took place. For example, it is believed that in 270 the languages ​​of the Romance group began to separate from Latin. It was at this time that Emperor Aurelian decided to withdraw Roman colonists from the province of Dacia. In addition, the researchers used data on the modern geographical distribution of various languages.

Research results

After combining the information obtained, an evolutionary tree was created based on the following two hypotheses: Kurgan and Anatolian. The researchers, having compared the resulting two trees, found that the “Anatolian” one, from a statistical point of view, is the most likely.

The reaction of colleagues to the results obtained by Atkinson's group was very mixed. Many scientists have noted that comparison with biological evolution and linguistic evolution is unacceptable, since they have different mechanisms. However, other scientists considered the use of such methods quite justified. However, the team was criticized for not testing the third hypothesis, the Balkan one.

Let us note that today the main hypotheses of the origin of the Indo-European languages ​​are Anatolian and Kurgan. According to the first, the most popular among historians and linguists, their ancestral home is the Black Sea steppes. Other hypotheses, Anatolian and Balkan, suggest that Indo-European languages ​​spread from Anatolia (in the first case) or from the Balkan Peninsula (in the second).