Indo-European Languages
 o Pre-16th century: Parts of Europe and Asia
 o Today: Worldwide
 o More than 3.4 billion speakers
Linguistic classification One of the world's primary language families
Proto-language Proto-Indo-European
ISO 639-2 / 5 ine
Glottolog indo1319[1]
Present-day native distribution of Indo-European languages, within their homeland of Eurasia:
  Non-Indo-European languages
Dotted/striped areas indicate where multilingualism is common

The Indo-European languages[2] 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.[3] The most widely spoken Indo-European languages by native speakers are Spanish, English, Hindustani (Hindi-Urdu), 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, Estonian and several minor Uralic languages, as well as Turkish (a Turkic language), Basque (a language isolate), and Maltese (a Semitic language). The Indo-European family is also represented in Asia with the exception of East and Southeast 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.

History of Indo-European linguistics

Although ancient Greek and Roman grammarians noticed similarities between their languages, as well as with surrounding Celtic and Germanic speakers, the sheer ubiquity of Indo-European languages around them led them to the assumption that all human languages were related. This assumption would continue among many grammarians into the early 19th century, the grammatical similarities among Indo-European languages sometimes being seen as evidence of the Tower of Babel until the establishment of the study of Indo-European linguistics proper and the study of non-Indo-European language families.[4][not in citation given][non-primary source needed]

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)[5] 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 deva?/dio "God", sarpa?/serpe "serpent", sapta/sette "seven", a??a/otto "eight", and nava/nove "nine").[5] However, neither Stephens' nor Sassetti's observations led to further scholarly inquiry.[5]

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.[6]

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,[7] though his classification contained some inaccuracies and omissions.[8]

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.[9][10] 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[11] 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[by whom?] 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 Kury?owicz's 1956 Apophony in Indo-European, who in 1927 pointed out the existence of the Hittite consonant ?.[12] Kury?owicz'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.[]


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

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.[22][23]
  • 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.[24]
  • 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.[25]
  • Lusitanian: possibly related to (or part of) Celtic, Ligurian, or Italic
  • Cimmerian: possibly Iranic, Thracian, or Celtic


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.

Tree versus wave model

The "tree model" is considered an appropriate representation of the genealogical history of a language family if communities do not remain in contact after their languages have started to diverge. In this case, subgroups defined by shared innovations form a nested pattern. The tree model is not appropriate in cases where languages remain in contact as they diversify; in such cases subgroups may overlap, and the "wave model" is a more accurate representation.[26] Most approaches to Indo-European subgrouping to date have assumed that the tree model is by and large valid for Indo-European;[27] however, there is also a long tradition of wave-model approaches.[28][29][30]

In addition to genealogical changes, many of the early changes in Indo-European languages can be attributed to language contact. It has been asserted, for example, that many of the more striking features shared by Italic languages (Latin, Oscan, Umbrian, etc.) might well be areal features. More certainly, very similar-looking alterations in the systems of long vowels in the West Germanic languages greatly postdate any possible notion of a proto-language innovation (and cannot readily be regarded as "areal", either, because English and continental West Germanic were not a linguistic area). In a similar vein, there are many similar innovations in Germanic and Balto-Slavic that are far more likely areal features than traceable to a common proto-language, such as the uniform development of a high vowel (*u in the case of Germanic, *i/u in the case of Baltic and Slavic) before the PIE syllabic resonants *?,* ?, *?, *?, 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.[31]

Proposed subgroupings

Specialists have postulated the existence of higher-order subgroups such as Italo-Celtic, Graeco-Armenian, Graeco-Aryan or Graeco-Armeno-Aryan, and Balto-Slavo-Germanic. However, unlike the ten traditional branches, these are all controversial to a greater or lesser degree.[32]

The Italo-Celtic subgroup was at one point uncontroversial, considered by Antoine Meillet to be even better established than Balto-Slavic.[33] The main lines of evidence included the genitive suffix -?; the superlative suffix -m?mo; the change of /p/ to /k?/ before another /k?/ in the same word (as in penk?e > *k?enk?e > Latin qu?nque, Old Irish cóic); and the subjunctive morpheme -?-.[34] This evidence was prominently challenged by Calvert Watkins;[35] but other, stronger evidence has since emerged.[36]

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".[37] Greek and Indo-Iranian share innovations mainly in verbal morphology and patterns of nominal derivation.[38] Relations have also been proposed between Phrygian and Greek,[39] and between Thracian and Armenian.[40][41] 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[42] and Tocharian. Shared features with Balto-Slavic languages, on the other hand (especially present and preterit formations), might be due to later contacts.[43] 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[44] and the preservation of laryngeals.[45] 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.[46] Hans J. Holm, based on lexical calculations, arrives at a picture roughly replicating the general scholarly opinion and refuting the Indo-Hittite hypothesis.[47]

Satem and centum languages

Some significant isoglosses in Indo-European daughter languages at around 500 BC.
  Blue: centum languages
  Red: satem languages
  Orange: languages with augment
  Green: languages with PIE *-tt- > -ss-
  Tan: languages with PIE *-tt- > -st-
  Pink: languages with instrumental, dative and ablative plural endings (and some others) in *-m- rather than *-bh-

The division of the Indo-European languages into satem and centum groups was put forward by Peter von Bradke in 1890, although 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 [s] in the former, but became an ordinary velar [k] in the latter.

Rather than being a genealogical separation, the centum-satem division is commonly seen as resulting from innovative changes that spread across PIE dialect branches over a particular geographical area; the centum-satem isogloss intersects a number of other isoglosses that mark distinctions between features in the early IE branches. It may be that the centum branches in fact reflect the original state of affairs in PIE, and only the satem branches shared a set of innovations, which affected all but the peripheral areas of the PIE dialect continuum.[48] Kortlandt proposes that the ancestors of Balts and Slavs took part in satemization before being drawn later into the western Indo-European sphere.[49]

Suggested macrofamilies

Some linguists propose that Indo-European languages form part of one of several hypothetical macrofamilies. However, these theories remain highly controversial, not being accepted by most linguists in the field. Some of the smaller proposed macrofamilies are:

Other, greater proposed families including Indo-European languages, are:

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.



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.


Expansion of Indo-European languages
IE languages 4000 BC
IE languages ca. 4000 BC 
IE languages 3000 BC
IE languages ca. 3000 BC 
IE languages 2000 BC
IE languages ca. 2000 BC 
IE languages 500 BC
IE languages ca. 500 BC 
Expansion of Indo-European languages (alternative view)
IE languages 3500 BC
IE languages ca. 3500 BC 
IE languages 2500 BC
IE languages ca. 2500 BC 
IE languages 1500 BC
IE languages ca. 1500 BC 
IE languages 500 AD
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:[50]

  • 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;[50] proto-Germanic ca. 500 BC[51]
  • Proto-Indo-Iranian (2000 BC)

David Anthony proposes the following sequence:[52]

  • 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:

Important languages for reconstruction

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

Most 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)[54] 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:

Other secondary sources, of lesser value due to poor attestation:

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).

Sound changes

As the Proto-Indo-European (PIE) language broke up, its sound system diverged as well, changing according to various sound laws evidenced in the daughter languages.

PIE is normally reconstructed with a complex system of 15 stop consonants, including an unusual three-way phonation (voicing) distinction between voiceless, voiced and "voiced aspirated" (i.e. breathy voiced) stops, and a three-way distinction among velar consonants (k-type sounds) between "palatal" ? ? ?h, "plain velar" k g gh and labiovelar k? g? g?h. (The correctness of the terms palatal and plain velar is disputed; see Proto-Indo-European phonology.) All daughter languages have reduced the number of distinctions among these sounds, often in divergent ways.

As an example, in English, one of the Germanic languages, the following are some of the major changes that happened:

  1. As in other centum languages, the "plain velar" and "palatal" stops merged, reducing the number of stops from 15 to 12.
  2. As in the other Germanic languages, the Germanic sound shift changed the realization of all stop consonants, with each consonant shifting to a different one:
    b? -> b -> p -> f
    d? -> d -> t -> ?
    g? -> g -> k -> x (Later initial x ->h)
    g?? -> g? -> k? -> x? (Later initial x? ->h?)

    Each original consonant shifted one position to the right. For example, original d? became d, while original d became t and original t became ? (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; p?s, p?dis vs. foot; pluvium "rain" vs. flow; pater vs. father
    For PIE t: tr?s vs. three; m?ter vs. mother
    For PIE d: decem vs. ten; p?dis vs. foot; quid vs. what
    For PIE k: centum vs. hund(red); capere "to take" vs. have
    For PIE k?: quid vs. what; quand? vs. when
  3. Various further changes affected consonants in the middle or end of a word:
    • The voiced stops resulting from the sound shift were softened to voiced fricatives (or perhaps the sound shift directly generated fricatives in these positions).
    • Verner's law also turned some of the voiceless fricatives resulting from the sound shift into voiced fricatives or stops. This is why the t in Latin centum ends up as d in hund(red) rather than the expected th.
    • Most remaining h sounds disappeared, while remaining f and th became voiced. For example, Latin decem ends up as ten with no h in the middle (but note taíhun "ten" in Gothic, an archaic Germanic language). Similarly, the words seven and have have a voiced v (compare Latin septem, capere), while father and mother have a voiced th, although not spelled differently (compare Latin pater, m?ter).

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 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 following table shows the basic outcomes of PIE consonants in some of the most important daughter languages for the purposes of reconstruction. For a fuller table, see Indo-European sound laws.

Proto-Indo-European consonants and their reflexes in selected Indo-European daughter languages
PIE Skr. O.C.S. Lith. Greek Latin Old Irish Gothic English Examples
PIE Eng. Skr. Gk. Lat. Lith. etc.
*p p; phH p Ø;
`-b- [?]
*p?ds ~ *ped- foot pád- poús (podós) p?s (pedis) pãdas
*t t; thH t t;
-th- [?]
þ [?];
`-d- [ð];
*tréyes three tráyas tre?s tr?s tr?s
*? ? [?] s ? [?] k c [k] c [k];
-ch- [x]
`-g- [?]
*?m?tóm hund(red) ?atám he-katón centum ?imtas
*k k; cE[t?];
k *kreuh?
"raw meat"
OE hr?aw
kraví?- kréas cruor kraûjas
*k? p;
qu [k?];
? [?];
*k?id, k?od what kím quid, quod kas, kad
*k?ek?lom wheel cakrá- kúklos kãklas
*b b; bhH b b [b];
*d d; dhH d d [d];
t *dé?m?(t) ten,
Goth. taíhun
dá?a déka decem d??imt
*? j [d?];
z ? [?] g g [?];
k c / k;
*?énu, *?néu- OE cn?o
j??nu gónu genu
*g g;
g *yugóm yoke yugám zugón iugum jùngas
*g? b;
u [w > v];
b [b];
q [k?] qu *g??w- quick
j?vá- bíos,
v?vus gývas
*b? bh;
b ph;
b [b];
*b?er? bear "carry" bhar- phér? fer? OCS ber?
*d? dh;
d th;
d [d];
d [d];
d *d?wer-, d?ur- door dhv??ra? thur?? for?s dùrys
*?? h [?];
z ? [?] kh;
g [?];
-g- [?];
-g [x]
*??ans- goose,
OHG gans
ha?sá? kh?n (h)?nser ??sìs
*g? gh;
*g?? ph;
g /
-u- [w];
ngu [??]
*sneig??- snow sneha- nípha nivis sni?gas
*g??erm-  ??warm gharmá? thermós formus Latv. gar?me
*s s h-;
s [s];
*sept?? seven saptá heptá septem septynì
?ruki-[?] xruki-[x] ?ruki-[?] *h?eus?s
east u???? ??s aur?ra au?ra
*m m m [m];
m *m?s mouse m???- m?s m?s OCS my??
*-m -m -? [~] -n -m -n -Ø *?m?tóm hund(red) ?atám (he)katón centum OPrus simtan
*n n n;
-? [~]
n *nok?t- night nákt- núkt- noct- naktis
*l r (dial. l) l *leuk- light rócate leukós l?x la?kas
*r r *h?reud?- red rudhirá- eruthrós ruber ra?das
*i? y [j] j [j] z [dz > zd, z] /
i [j];
Ø j y *yugóm yoke yugám zugón iugum jùngas
*u? v [?] v v [?] w > h / Ø u [w > v] f;
w *h?weh?n?to- wind v??ta? áenta ventus v?tra
PIE Skr. O.C.S. Lith. Greek Latin Old Irish Gothic English
  • C- At the beginning of a word.
  • -C- Between vowels.
  • -C At the end of a word.
  • `-C- Following an unstressed vowel (Verner's law).
  • -C-(rl) Between vowels, or between a vowel and r, l (on either side).
  • CT Before a (PIE) stop (p, t, k).
  • CT- After a (PIE) obstruent (p, t, k, etc.; s).
  • C(T) Before or after an obstruent (p, t, k, etc.; s).
  • CH Before an original laryngeal.
  • CE Before a (PIE) front vowel (i, e).
  • CE' Before secondary (post-PIE) front-vowels.
  • Ce Before e.
  • C(u) Before or after a (PIE) u (boukólos rule).
  • C(O) Before or after a (PIE) o, u (boukólos rule).
  • Cn- After n.
  • CR Before a sonorant (r, l, m, n).
  • C(R) Before or after a sonorant (r, l, m, n).
  • C(r),l,u- Before r, l or after r, u.
  • Cruki- After r, u, k, i (Ruki sound law).
  • C..Ch Before an aspirated consonant in the next syllable (Grassmann's law, also known as dissimilation of aspirates).
  • CE..Ch Before a (PIE) front vowel (i, e) as well as before an aspirated consonant in the next syllable (Grassmann's law, also known as dissimilation of aspirates).
  • C(u)..Ch Before or after a (PIE) u as well as before an aspirated consonant in the next syllable (Grassmann's law, also known as dissimilation of aspirates).

Comparison of conjugations

The following table presents a comparison of conjugations of the thematic present indicative of the verbal root *b?er- 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.

(*b?er- 'to carry')
I (1st sg.) *b?éroh?
You (2nd sg.) *b?éresi
He/She/It (3rd sg.) *b?éreti
We (1st dual) *b?érowos
You (2nd dual) *b?éreth?es
They (3rd dual) *b?éretes
We (1st pl.) *b?éromos
You (2nd pl.) *b?érete
They (3rd pl.) *b?éronti
Major subgroup Hellenic Indo-Iranian Italic Celtic Armenian Germanic Balto-Slavic Albanian
Indo-Aryan Iranian Baltic Slavic
Ancient representative Ancient Greek Vedic Sanskrit Avestan Latin Old Irish Classical Arm. Gothic Old Prussian Old Church Sl. Old Albanian
I (1st sg.) phér? bhár?mi bar? fer? biru; berim berem baíra /b?ra/ ber? *berja
You (2nd sg.) phéreis bhárasi barahi fers biri; berir beres baíris bere?i
He/She/It (3rd sg.) phérei bhárati baraiti fert berid ber? baíriþ beret?
We (1st dual) -- bhár?vas bar?vahi -- -- -- baíros berev?
You (2nd dual) phéreton bhárathas -- -- -- -- baírats bereta
They (3rd dual) phéreton bháratas barat? -- -- -- -- berete
We (1st pl.) phéromen bhár?mas bar?mahi ferimus bermai beremk` baíram berem?
You (2nd pl.) phérete bháratha bara?a fertis beirthe ber?k` baíriþ berete
They (3rd pl.) phérousi bháranti bar??ti ferunt berait beren baírand ber?t?
Modern representative Modern Greek Hindustani Persian French Irish Armenian (Eastern; Western) German Lithuanian Czech Albanian
I (1st sg.) férno (mai?) bhar?? (man) {mi}baram (je) {con}fère beirim berum em; g'perem (ich) {ge}bäre beriu beru (unë) bie
You (2nd sg.) férnis (t?) bhare (tu) {mi}bari (tu) {con}fères beirir berum es; g'peres (du) {ge}bierst beri bere? (ti) bie
He/She/It (3rd sg.) férni (vah) bhare (?n) {mi}barad (il) {con}fère beireann; %beiridh berum ?; g'per? (er)(sie)(es) {ge}biert beria bere (ai/ajo) bie
We (1st dual) beriava
You (2nd dual) beriata
They (3rd dual) beria
We (1st pl.) férnume (ham) bhare? (m?) {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 (?om?) {mi}barid (vous) {con}férez beireann sibh; %beirthaoi berum ek`; g'perek` (ihr) {ge}bärt beriate berete (ju) bini
They (3rd pl.) férnun (ve) bhare? (?n?n) {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 bharn?, 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: mai? bhart? h??, t? bhart? hai, vah bhart? hai, ham bharte hai?, tum bharte ho, ve bharte hai? (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 ???? (modern transliteration fero) "to bear" is still used but only in specific contexts and is most common in such compounds as ???????, ???????, ???????, ??????, ????????, ???????, ??????????, ???????? etc. The form that is (very) common today is pherno ????? (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 ????? (brat') carries the meaning to take. ????? (br'em'a) means burden, as something heavy to bear, and derivative ???????????? (b'er'em'ennost') means pregnancy.

Comparison of cognates

Present distribution of Indo-European languages

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:

Today, Indo-European languages are spoken by almost 3 billion native speakers across all inhabited continents,[55] 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.[56] 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[57] and 1 billion[58] 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 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.

See also


  1. ^ Hammarström, Harald; Forkel, Robert; Haspelmath, Martin, eds. (2017). "Indo-European". Glottolog 3.0. Jena, Germany: Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History. 
  2. ^
  3. ^ "Ethnologue report for Indo-European". 
  4. ^ Gilchrist, John (January 1804). "A New Theory and Prospectus of the Persian Verbs, with their Hindoostanee Synonymes in Persian and English". The Critical Review: or, Annals of Literature. 3. Volume 1: 565-571. 
  5. ^ a b c Auroux, Sylvain (2000). History of the Language Sciences. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter. p. 1156. ISBN 3-11-016735-2. 
  6. ^ M. V. Lomonosov (drafts for Russian Grammar, published 1755). In: Complete Edition, Moscow, 1952, vol. 7, pp. 652-659: ??????????? ??????? ???????, ??????? ??? ????? ???????????. ... ???????? ? ?????????? ????? ???? ????? ???????????! ??????? ??, ????? ???????????! ??????? ??, ????? ?????????, ????., ???., ????. ? ???????? ?????????! [Imagine the depth of time when these languages separated! ... Polish and Russian separated so long ago! Now think how long ago [this happened to] Kurlandic! Think when [this happened to] Latin, Greek, German, and Russian! Oh, great antiquity!]
  7. ^ "Indo-European Practice and Historical Methodology (cited on pp. 14-15)." (PDF). Retrieved . 
  8. ^ Roger Blench. "Archaeology and Language: methods and issues" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on May 17, 2006. Retrieved 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.)[dead link]
  9. ^ 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. 
  10. ^ In London Quarterly Review X/2 1813.; cf. Szemerényi 1999:12, footnote 6
  11. ^ Franz Bopp (2010) [1816]. Über das Conjugationssystem der Sanskritsprache : in Vergleichung mit jenem der griechischen, lateinischen, persischen und germanischen Sprache. Documenta Semiotica : Serie 1, Linguistik (2 ed.). Hildesheim: Olms. 
  12. ^ Kurylowicz, Jerzy (1927). "? indo-européen et ? hittite". In Taszycki, W.; Doroszewski, W. Symbolae grammaticae in honorem Ioannis Rozwadowski. 1. pp. 95-104. 
  13. ^ 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).
  14. ^ Curtis, Matthew Cowan. "Slavic-Albanian Language Contact, Convergence, and Coexistence". ProQuest LLC. p. 18. Retrieved 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 
  15. ^  Missing or empty |title= (help)
  16. ^ (PDF)  Missing or empty |title= (help)
  17. ^ such as Schleicher 1861, Szemerényi 1957, Collinge 1985, and Beekes 1995
  18. ^ "Tablet Discovery Pushes Earliest European Writing Back 150 Years". Science 2.0. 30 March 2011. 
  19. ^ Indian History. Allied Publishers. p. 114. ISBN 978-81-8424-568-4. 
  20. ^ Mark, Joshua J. (28 April 2011). "Mitanni". Ancient History Encyclopedia. 
  21. ^ 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
  22. ^ Michel Lejeune (1974), Manuel de la langue vénète. Heidelberg: Indogermanische Bibliothek, Lehr- und Handbücher.[page needed]
  23. ^ Julius Pokorny (1959), Indogermanisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch. Publisher Bern.[page needed]
  24. ^ Kruta, Venceslas (1991). The Celts. Thames and Hudson. p. 54. 
  25. ^ 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."
  26. ^ 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 .
  27. ^ Bla?ek, 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. 
  28. ^ Meillet, Antoine (1908). Les dialectes indo-européens. Paris: Honoré Champion. 
  29. ^ Bonfante, Giuliano (1931). I dialetti indoeuropei. Brescia: Paideia. 
  30. ^ Porzig, Walter (1954). Die Gliederung des indogermanischen Sprachgebiets. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag. 
  31. ^ Nakhleh, Luay; Ringe, Don & Warnow, Tandy (2005). "Perfect Phylogenetic Networks: A New Methodology for Reconstructing the Evolutionary History of Natural Languages" (PDF). Language: Journal of the Linguistic Society of America. 81 (2): 382-420. doi:10.1353/lan.2005.0078. 
  32. ^ Mallory, J.P.; Adams, D.Q. (1997). Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture. London: Fitzroy Dearborn. 
  33. ^ Porzig 1954, p. 39.
  34. ^ Fortson 2004, p. 247.
  35. ^ Watkins, Calvert (1966). "Italo-Celtic revisited". In Birnbaum, Henrik; Puhvel, Jaan. Ancient Indo-European dialects. Berkeley: University of California Press. pp. 29-50. 
  36. ^ 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. 
  37. ^ Greppin, James (1996). "Review of The linguistic relationship between Armenian and Greek by James Clackson". Language. 72 (4): 804-807. doi:10.2307/416105. 
  38. ^ Euler, Wolfram (1979). Indoiranisch-griechische Gemeinsamkeiten der Nominalbildung und deren indogermanische Grundlagen. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck. 
  39. ^ Lubotsky - The Old Phrygian Areyastis-inscription, Kadmos 27, 9-26, 1988
  40. ^ Kortlandt - The Thraco-Armenian consonant shift, Linguistique Balkanique 31, 71-74, 1988
  41. ^ Renfrew, Colin (1987). Archaeology & Language. The Puzzle of the Indo-European Origins. London: Jonathan Cape. ISBN 0-224-02495-7. 
  42. ^ Encyclopædia Britannica, vol.22, Helen Hemingway Benton Publisher, Chicago, (15th ed.) 1981, p. 593
  43. ^ George S. Lane, Douglas Q. Adams, Britannica 15th edition 22:667, "The Tocharian problem"
  44. ^ 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).
  45. ^ 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
  46. ^ Britannica 15th edition, 22 p. 594, "Indo-Hittite hypothesis"
  47. ^ 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. 
  48. ^ Britannica 15th edition, vol.22, 1981, pp. 588, 594
  49. ^ Kortlandt, Frederik (1989). "The spread of the Indo-Europeans" (PDF). Retrieved . 
  50. ^ a b Anthony 2007, pp. 56-58.
  51. ^ Ringe 2006, p. 67.
  52. ^ Anthony 2007, p. 100.
  53. ^ "Indo-European Languages: Balto-Slavic Family". 2008-11-10. Archived from the original on 2011-06-04. Retrieved . 
  54. ^ Ancient Tablet Found: Oldest Readable Writing in Europe
  55. ^ "Ethnologue list of language families". Retrieved . 
  56. ^ "Ethnologue list of languages by number of speakers". Retrieved . 
  57. ^ "English". Ethnologue. Retrieved 2017. 
  58. ^ "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. 

Further reading

External links



  This article uses material from the Wikipedia page available here. It is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike License 3.0.



US Cities - Things to Do