The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European Part 1 pdf

The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the
Proto-Indo-European World
This page intentionally left blank
The Oxford Introduction to
Proto-Indo-European and the
Proto-Indo-European World
J. P. Mallory and
D. Q. Adams
1
1
Great Clarendon Street, Oxford ox26dp
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.
It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide in
Oxford New York
Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi
Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi
New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto
With oYces in
Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece
Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore
South Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam
Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press
in the UK and in certain other countries
Published in the United States
by Oxford University Press Inc., New York
ß J. P. Mallory and D. Q. Adams 2006
The moral rights of the authors have been asserted
Database right Oxford University Press (maker)
First published 2006

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press,
or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate
reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction
outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department,
Oxford University Press, at the address above
You must not circulate this book in any other binding or cover
and you must impose the same condition on any acquirer
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Data available
Library of Congress Cataloguing in Publication Data
Data available
Typeset by SPI Publisher Services, Pondicherry, India
Printed in Great Britain
on acid-free paper by
Biddles Ltd., www.biddles.co.uk
ISBN 0-19-928791-0 978-0-19-928791-8 (HB)
0-19-929668-5 978-0-19-929668-2
13579108642
Contents
List of Maps xii
Lits of Figures xiii
List of Tables xiv
List of Abbreviations and Acronyms xix
Introduction xxii
1 Discovery 1
1.1 Language relations 1
1.2 Indo-European 6
2 The Elements 12

2.1 The Indo-European languages 12
2.2 Celtic 15
2.3 Italic 18
2.4 Germanic 19
2.5 Baltic 23
2.6 Slavic 25
2.7 Albanian 26
2.8 Greek 27
2.9 Anatolian 28
2.10 Armenian 31
2.11 Indo-Aryan 32
2.12 Iranian 33
2.13 Tocharian 35
2.14 Minor languages 36
3 Reconstructing Proto-Indo-European 39
3.1 The Comparative Method 39
3.2 Schleicher’s Tale 45
3.3 Laryngeal Theory 48
3.4 Reconstruction and Reality 50
4 The System 54
4.0 The System 54
4.1 Phonology 54
4.2 The Noun 56
4.3 Adjectives 59
4.4 Pronouns 59
4.5 Numerals 61
4.6 Particles and Conjunctions 62
4.7 Prepositions 62
4.8 Verbs 62
4.9 Derivation 65

5 Relationships 71
5.0 Linguistic Relationship 71
5.1 Internal Relationships 71
5.2 External Relations 81
5.3 Genetic Models 83
6 A Place in Time 86
6.0 The Fourth Dimension 86
6.1 Time Depth 86
6.2 Relative Chronologies 88
6.3 Absolute Chronologies 92
6.4 The Dark Ages? 103
7 Reconstructing the Proto-Indo-Europeans 106
7.1 Approaches to the Past 106
7.2 How Many Cognate s? 107
7.3 Reconstructed Meaning 110
7.4 Semantic Fields 112
7.5 Folk Taxonomies 113
7.6 Level of Reconstruction 115
7.7 Root Homonyms 115
7.8 How Long a Text? 116
7.9 Vocabulary—What’s Missing? 117
8 The Physical World 120
8.1 Earth 120
8.2 Fire 122
8.3 Water 125
vi contents
8.4 Air 128
8.5 The Physical Landscape of th e
Proto-Indo-Europeans 130
9 Indo-European Fauna 132

9.1 Reconstructing Environments 132
9.2 Mammals 134
9.3 Birds 143
9.4 Fish, Reptiles, Amphibians 146
9.5 Insects, Shellfish, etc. 148
9.6 Indo-European Animals 151
10 Indo-European Flora 156
10.1 Trees 156
10.2 Wild Plants 161
10.3 Domesticated Plants 163
10.4 Agricultural Terms 167
10.5 Proto-Indo-European Flora 169
11 Anatomy 173
11.0 The Body 173
11.1 The Head 173
11.2 Hair 176
11.3 The Upper Body and Arms 178
11.4 The Lower Body and Legs 182
11.5 Internal Organs 185
11.6 Vital Functions 188
11.7 Health and Disease 192
11.8 The Lexicon of the Body 199
12 Family and Kinship 203
12.1 Family and Household 203
12.2 Marriage 206
12.3 Kinship 209
13 Hearth and Home 219
13.1 Dwelling 219
13.2 Construction 223
13.3 Proto-Indo-European Settlement 227

CONTENTS vii
14 Clothing and Textiles 230
14.1 Textiles 230
14.2 Proto-Indo-European Textile Production 236
15 Material Culture 239
15.1 Containers 239
15.2 Metals 241
15.3 Tools 242
15.4 Weapons 244
15.5 Ornament 246
15.6 Transport 247
15.7 Roads 250
15.8 Proto-Indo-European Material Culture 251
16 Food and Drink 254
16.1 Eat and Drink 254
16.2 Preparation 258
16.3 Foods and Meals 260
16.4 Proto-Indo-European Diet 264
17 Proto-Indo-European Society 266
17.1 Social Organization 266
17.2 Give and Take 270
17.3 Exchange and Property 272
17.4 Law and Order 276
17.5 Strife and Warfare 277
17.6 Occupations 283
17.7 Proto-Indo-European Society 284
18 Space and Time 287
18.1 Space 287
18.2 Position 288
18.3 Direction 293

18.4 Placement (Verbs) 295
18.5 Shape 297
18.6 Time 300
18.7 Proto-Indo-European Space and Time 303
19 Number and Quantity 307
19.0 Numerical Systems 307
viii contents
19.1 Basic Numerals 308
19.2 Measure and Quantity 317
20 Mind, Emotions and Sense Perception 321
20.1 Knowledge and Thought 321
20.2 Sight 325
20.3 Bright and Dark 328
20.4 Colours 331
20.5 Hearing, Smell, Touch and Taste 334
20.6 The Good, Bad and the Ugly 336
20.7 Desire 340
20.8 Love and Hate 342
20.9 Hot, Cold and other Qualities 344
20.10 Proto-Indo-European Perception 348
21 Speech and Sound 352
21.0 Speech and Sounds 352
21.1 Speech 352
21.2 Elevated Speech 355
21.3 Interjections and Human Sounds 359
21.4 Animal Sounds 363
21.5 Proto-Indo-European Speech 365
22 Activities 368
22.1 Existence, Ability and Attempt 368
22.2 Reductive Activities 371

22.3 Rotary and Lateral Activities 377
22.4 Bind, Stick and Smear 380
22.5 Bend and Press 382
22.6 Inflation 385
22.7 Extend 387
22.8 Throw 388
22.9 Clean 389
22.10 Movement 390
22.11 Pour and Flow 393
22.12 Come and Go 394
22.13 Run and Jump 397
22.14 Crawl, Slide and Fall 400
22.15 Travel 401
CONTENTS ix
22.16 Swim 403
22.17 Convey 404
23 Religion 408
23.1 Deities 408
23.2 The Sacred 411
24 Grammatical Elements 415
24.0 Pronouns 415
24.1 Personal and Reflexive Pronouns 415
24.2 Demonstrative Pronouns 417
24.3 Interrogative Pronouns 419
24.4 Relative Pronouns 421
24.5 Conjunctions 421
25 Comparative Mythology 423
25.0 Reconstructing Mythologies 423
25.1 Approaches to Mythology 427
25.2 Deities 431

25.3 Creation 435
25.4 War of the Foundation 436
25.5 Hero and Serpent 436
25.6 Horse Sacrifice 437
25.7 King and Virgin 437
25.8 Fire in Water 438
25.9 Functional Patterns 438
25.10 Death and th e Otherworld 439
25.11 Final Battle 439
25.12 Current Trends 440
26 Origins—The Never-Ending Story 442
26.1 The Homeland Problem 442
26.2 Homeland Approaches 444
26.3 What Does the Homeland Look Like? 453
26.4 Evaluating Homeland Theories 454
26.5 Processes of Expansion 458
26.6 Where Do They Put It Now? 460
x contents
Appendices
Appendix 1 Basic Sound Correspondences between PIE and the Major IE
Groups 464
Appendix 2 A Proto-Indo-European–English Word-list 466
Appendix 3 An English–Proto-Indo-European Word-list 523
References 565
Index of Languages 591
Index of Subjects and Places 619
CONTENTS xi
2.20. Selected cognates in Sanskrit and Avestan 34
2.21. Selected cognates in Tocharian, Old English and
New English 35

3.1. The Sanskrit alphabet 40
3.2. Comparison of three Indo-European words 41
3.3. Selected sound correspondences across the
Indo-European languages 41
3.4. The singular endings of the verb ‘carry’ in Indo-European 45
3.5. Short vowel ablaut patterns in Greek 48
3.6. Long vowel ablaut patterns in Greek 49
3.7. The Proto-Indo-European consonant system 51
3.8. Normal marking of labials 51
3.9. Proto-Indo-European labials 52
3.10. The labials in the glottalic system 52
3.11. The labials in Wu 53
3.12. The traditional Proto-Indo-European system and its glottalic
equivalents 53
4.1. The Proto-Indo-European phonological system 55
4.2. Common Indo-European suYxes 57
4.3. Basic case endings of the Indo-European noun 57
4.4. Accent shift in case forms 58
4.5. Endings of o-stem nouns 58
4.6. h
2
-(or a
¯
)-stem endings 59
4.7. Personal pronouns 60
4.8. Some basic numerals 61
4.9. Proto-Indo-European personal endings 64
4.10. The verb *h
1
e

´
s- ‘to be’ in the present active indicative 64
4.11. Second conjugation of *bher- ‘to carry’ in the
present active indicative 65
4.12. Nominal and verbal derivatives of *steh
2
- ‘stand’ 66
4.13. Derivational tree of *h
2
eh
x
- ‘be hot, burn’
(cf. Palaic ha
¯
- ‘be hot). 67
4.14. Illustration of Indo-European ablaut in derivation
(PIE *sed- ‘sit’ and *pet- ‘Xy’) 68
4.15. Schleicher’s Tale 69
5.1. Yas
ˇ
t 10.6 from the Avesta and a Sanskrit translation 76
5.2. Pronouns in Proto-Ind o-European, Proto-Uralic
and Proto-Afro-Asiatic 83
LIST OF TABLES xv
6.1. Indo-European words for ‘Wre’ 91
6.2. Dates of separation from Proto-Indo-European
based on the 100 and 200 word lists (after Tischler 1973) 95
6.3. The ‘‘basic’’ vocabulary of Proto-Indo-European
and its attestation in the major Indo-European groups 97
7.1. Cognates that are found in all major

Indo-European groups 108
7.2. Number of cognate sets attested per number
of groups sharing a cognate 108
7.3. Cognates of *h
2
o
´
wis 112
7.4. Cognates of *bheh
a
go
´
s 112
7.5. Cognates of *m(e)uh
x
- 113
7.6. Cognates of *k
(w)
r
˚
wis 113
7.7. Verbs concerned with speaking in Proto-Indo-European 114
7.8. Some PIE ‘‘homonyms’’ 116
7.9. Some examples of poetic diction built on *k
ˆ
le
´
wos ‘fame’ 118
8.1. Earth 121
8.2. Fire 123

8.3. Water 125
8.4. Air 128
9.1. Mammals 134
9.2. Birds 143
9.3. Fish, reptiles, amphibians 146
9.4. Insects, shellWsh, etc. 149
9.5. Animal names in Proto-Indo-European and Uralic 151
10.1. Trees 157
10.2. Plants (non-domesticated) 162
10.3. Domesticated plants 164
10.4. Agricultural terminology 167
11.1. The head 174
11.2. Hair 177
11.3. The upper body and arms 179
11.4. The lower body and legs 183
11.5. Internal organs 185
11.6. Vital functions 189
11.7. Health and sickness 193
xvi list of tables
11.8. Frequency of occurrence of body part names
in American English and the number of cognate
groups in Proto-Indo-European 200
12.1. Family and household 204
12.2. Marriage 207
12.3. Kinship 209
13.1. Terms for dwelling 220
13.2. Construction and furnishing 224
14.1. Textile terms 231
15.1. Containers 240
15.2. Metals 241

15.3. Tools 242
15.4. Weapons 245
15.5. Transport 247
15.6. Roads 250
16.1. Hunger, eating and drinking 255
16.2. Food preparation 258
16.3. Foods 260
17.1. Society and social organization 267
17.2. Give and take 270
17.3. Exchange and property 273
17.4. Law and order 276
17.5. Strife and warfare 278
17.6. Occupations 283
18.1. Space 288
18.2. Position 289
18.3. Direction 294
18.4. Placement (verbs) 295
18.5. Shape 298
18.6. Time 300
19.1. Basic numbers 308
19.2. Measure and quantity 317
20.1. Knowledge and thought 322
20.2. Sight 325
20.3. Bright and dark 328
20.4. Colours 331
20.5. Hearing, smell, touch and taste 335
20.6A. Positive qualities 336
LIST OF TABLES xvii
20.6B. Negative qualities 338
20.7. Desire 341

20.8. Love and hate 343
20.9. Qualities 345
21.1. Speech 353
21.2. Elevated speech and song 356
21.3. Human noises 360
21.4. Animal sounds 363
22.1. Existence, doing and making 369
22.2. The verb ‘to be’ in selected IE languages 369
22.3. Reductive activities 372
22.4. Rotary and lateral activities 378
22.5. Binding 381
22.6. Bend and press 383
22.7. InXation 385
22.8. Extend 387
22.9. Throw 389
22.10. Clean 390
22.11. Movement 391
22.12. Pour and Xow 393
22.13. Come and go 395
22.14. Run and jump 398
22.15. Crawl, slide and fall 400
22.16. Travel 402
22.17. Swim 403
22.18. Convey 405
23.1. Deities and mythical personages 409
23.2. The sacred and sacriWce 412
24.1. Personal and reXexive pronouns 416
24.2. Demonstrative pronouns 418
24.3. Interrogative pronouns 419
24.4. Relative pronouns 421

24.5. Conjunctions 422
25.1. The three heaven s of the Indo-Europeans after J. Haudry 428
25.2. Indo-European social classes 429
xviii list of tables
Lyc ¼ Lycian, Anatolian language of southwest Anatolia (6th–4th centur-
ies bc).
Lyd ¼ Lydian, Anatolian language of west central Anatolia (6th– 4th
centuries bc).
Maced ¼ Macedonian, a language closely related to Greek.
MDutch ¼ West (Low) Germanic (c 1300 to 1500).
ME ¼ Middle English, Germanic (12th–15th centuries).
Messapic – non-Italic language of southeast Italy (6th–1st centuries bc).
MHG ¼ Middle High German (ad 1050–1500).
MIr ¼ Middle Irish, Celtic (ad 900–1200).
Mitanni ¼ Hurrian (non-IE) language of the upper Euphrates with elem-
ents of Indo-Aryan (15th–14th centuries bc).
MLG ¼ Middle Low German (ad 1050–1350).
MPers ¼ Middle Persian, Southwestern Iranian (200 bc–ad 700).
MWels ¼ Middle Welsh, Celtic (ad 1200–1500).
Myc ¼ Mycenaean, earliest attested Greek (16th? –13th centuries bc).
NDutch ¼ modern Dutch, West Germanic (1500 onwards).
NE ¼ New (Modern) English, Germanic (1500 onwards).
NHG ¼ New High German, Germanic (1500 onwards).
NIce ¼ New Icelandic, North Germanic language (1400 onwards).
NIr ¼ New Irish, Celtic (1200 onwards).
Norw ¼ Norwegian, North Germanic (1800 onwards).
NPers ¼ New Persian, Southwestern Iranian (8th century ad onwards).
OBrit ¼ Old British, Celtic (until 8th century ad).
OCS ¼ Old Church Slavonic, Slavic (9th–13th centuries).
OCzech ¼ Old Czech, West Slavic (13th–16th centuries).

OE ¼ Old English, Germanic (800–1150).
OHG ¼ Old High German, West Germanic (750 to 1050).
OIr ¼ Old Irish, Celtic (600 to 900).
OLat ¼ Old Latin (6th–2nd centuries bc).
OLith ¼ Old Lithuanian, Baltic (16th–18th centuries).
ON ¼ Old Norse, Germanic (1150–1550).
OPers ¼ Old Persian, Southwestern Iranian (6th–5th centu ries bc).
OPol ¼ Old Polish, West Slavic (13th–15th centuries).
OPrus ¼ Old Prussian, West Baltic (16th–18th centuries).
ORus ¼ Old Russian, East Slavic (1050–1600).
Osc ¼ Oscan, Italic (5th–1st centuries bc).
Oss ¼ Ossetic, Northeast Iranian (modern).
xx list of abbreviations and acronyms
OSwed ¼ Old Swedish, North Germanic language (13th–14th centuries).
OWels ¼ Old Welsh, Celtic (9th–12th centuries).
Pal ¼ Pa laic, Anatolian (c. 16th century bc).
Parth ¼ Parthian, Northwest Iranian (3rd–1st centuries bc).
Pashto ¼ Southeast Iranian (modern).
Phryg ¼ Phrygian (8th–3rd centuries bc and 1st centur y ad).
PIE ¼ Proto-Indo-European.
Pol ¼ Polish, Western Slavic (13th century onwards).
Roshani ¼ Southeast Iranian (modern).
Runic ¼ language of the earliest Germanic inscriptions (3rd–6th
centuries ad).
Rus ¼ Russian, East Slavic (c. 1050 ad onwards).
RusCS ¼ Russian variety of Old Church Slavonic.
Sanglechi ¼ Southeast Iranian (modern).
Sarikoli ¼ Southeast Iranian (modern).
SC ¼ Serbo-Croatian, South Slavic (19th century onwards).
SGael ¼ Scots Gaelic, Celtic (13th century onwards).

Scyth ¼ Scythian, Iranian.
SerbCS ¼ Serbian variety of Old Church Slavonic.
Shughni ¼ Southeast Iranian (modern).
Skt ¼ Sanskrit, Indo-Aryan (1000 bc onwards)
Slov ¼ Slovene, South Slavic (16th century onwards).
Sogdian ¼ Northeast Iranian (4th–8th centuries).
Swed ¼ Swedish, North Germanic (15th century onwards).
Thessalian Grk ¼ classical Greek dialect of Thessaly.
Thrac ¼ Thracian (5th century bc).
TochA ¼ Tocharian A (7th–10th centuries ad).
TochB ¼ Tocharian B (5th–13th centuries ad).
Umb ¼ Umbrian, Italic (3rd–1st centuries bc).
Waigali ¼ Nu¯rista
¯
ni, Indo-Iranian (modern).
NWels ¼ New Welsh, Celtic (1500 onwards).
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS xxi
This page intentionally left blank
The Wnal three chapters describe some of the commonest grammatical
elements of Proto-Indo-European, survey the methods used to recon-
struct the mythology of the Proto-Indo-Europeans, and examine the
various attempts at locating the Proto-Indo-European homeland. In
addition to standard indexes, the book also contains two word lists: a
Proto-Indo-European English list and a list of the Proto-Indo-European
vocabulary arranged by its English meaning (which should at least facili-
tate those who delight in such tasks as translating Hamlet into Klingon).
Students and general readers will be able to gain a broad knowledge
from this bo ok of the ancient language that underlies all the modern Indo-
European languages. We hope that the arrangement of evidence by semantic
group here will also stimulate research by linguists. One cannot be con-

fronted with a list of, say, verbal roots all with the same ‘reconstructed’
meaning without wondering how their semantic valence may have diVered in
the proto-language and to what extent it might be possible to recover
something of their earlier nuances. Altho ugh we frequently allude to at-
tempts to discuss the data according to some system of folk taxonomy, this is
obviously another area that has been insuYciently examined in the study of
Proto-Indo-European. The vario us regional ascriptions of cognates will
doubtless be subject to further scrutiny: the discovery of an Iranian cognate,
say, to a word otherwise only found in European languages would change
our conception of Proto-Indo-European itself. Other areas for further in-
vestigation include quantitative approaches to the Indo-European vocabu-
lary (for example, phoneme preferences and investigation of sound
symbolism by semantic class), and the comparison of Proto- Indo-European
with other reconstructed proto-languages.
The Proto-Indo-Eur opean Weld of study opens a window on a distant
past and presents the scholar and student with many opportunities
for investigation and discovery. We hope the present guide will reveal
something of its vibrancy, challenge, and endless fascin ation.
xxiv introduction
The balance of comparisons was not to be equal, however, because Latin was
the prestige language employed both in religious services and as an inter-
national means of communication. A medieval monk in England, employing
his native Old English, or a scholar in medieval Iceland who spoke Old Norse,
might exercise their ingenuity on the type of wordlist displayed in Table 1.2
where we have included the Latin equivalents.
The similarities between Latin and Old English in the words for ‘mother’,
‘father’, and ‘pig’, for example, might be explained by the learned classes in
terms of the in Xuence of Latin on the other languages of Europe. Latin, the
language of the Roman Empire, had pervaded the rest of Europe’s languages,
and someone writing in the Middle Ages, when Latin words were regularly

being imported into native vernaculars, could hear the process happening with
their own ears. The prestige of Latin, however, was overshadowed by that of
Greek as even the Romans acknowledged the antiquity and superior position
of ancient Greek. This veneration for Greek prompted a vaguely conceived
model in which Latin had evolved as some form of degraded Greek. Literary or
chronological prestige then created a sort of linguistic pecking order with
Greek at the apex and most ancient, then the somewhat degenerate Latin,
and then a series of debased European languages that had been inXuenced by
Latin.
What about the similarities between Old English and Old Norse? Our
English monk might note that all ten words on the list appeared to correspond
with one another and in two instances the words were precisely the same (‘pig’
and ‘house’). We have no idea whether any Englishman understood why the
two languages were so similar. But in the twelfth century a clever Icelandic
Table 1.1. Some common words in English, Dutch, Czech, and Spanish
English Dutch Czech Spanish
mother moeder matka madre
father vader otec padre
brother broer bratr hermano
sister zuster sestra hermana
son zoon syn hijo
daughter dochter dcera hija
dog hond pes perro
cow koe kra
´
va vaca
sheep schaap ovce oveja
pig zwijn prase puerco
house huis du
8

m casa
2 1. DISCOVERY
scholar, considering these types of similarities, concluded that Englishmen and
Icelanders ‘are of one tongue, even though one of the two (tongues) has
changed greatly, or both somewhat’. In a wider sense, the Icelander believed
that the two languages, although they diVered from one another, had ‘previ-
ously parted or branched oV from one and the same tongue’. The image of a
tree with a primeval language as a trunk branching out into its various daugh-
ter languages was quite deliberate—the Icelander employed the Old Norse verb
greina ‘to branch’. This model of a tree of related languages would later come
to dominate how we look at the evolution of the Indo-European languages (see
Section 5.1).
The similarities between the languages of Europe could then be accounted
for in two ways: some of the words might be explained by diVusion or borrow-
ing, here from Latin to the other languages of Europe. Other similarities might
be explained by their common genetic inheritance, i.e. there had once been a
primeval language from whence the current languages had all descended and
branched away. In this latter situation, we are dealing with more than similar-
ities since the words in question correspond with one another in that they have
the same origin and then, as the anonymous Icelander suggests, one or both
altered through time.
Speculation as to the identity of the primeval language was largely governed
by the Bible that provided a common origin for humankind. The biblical
account oVered three decisive linguistic events. The Wrst, the creation of
Adam and Eve, provided a single ancestral language which, given the authority
and origin of the Bible, ensured that Hebrew might be widely regarded as the
Table 1.2. Comparable words in Old English, Old Norse, and Latin
English Old English Old Norse Latin
mother mo
¯

dor mo
¯
ðir
a
ma
¯
ter
father fæder faðir pater
brother bro
¯
ðor bro
¯
ðir fra
¯
ter
sister sweostor systir soror
son sunu sunr fı
¯
lius
daughter dohtor do
¯
ttir fı
¯
lia
dog hund hundr canis
cow cu
¯
ky
¯
rbo

¯
s
sheep e
¯
owu ær ovis
pig swı
¯
n svı
¯
n suı
¯
nus
house hu
¯
shu
¯
s domus
a
The Old English and Norse ð is equivalent to a ‘th’ in English, e.g. this.
1. DISCOVERY 3
‘original’ language from which all others had descended. Hebrew as a common
language, however, did not make it past the sixth chapter of Genesis when the
three sons of Noah—Shem, Ham, and Japheth—were required to repeople the
world after the Flood. These provided the linguistic ancestors of three major
groups—the Semites, the Hamites (Egyptians, Cushites), and the oVspring of
Japheth to whom Europeans looked for their own linguistic ancestry. By the
eleventh chapter of Genesis the world’s linguistic diversity was re-explained as
the result of divine industrial sabotage against the construction crews building
the Tower of Babel.
During the sixteenth century pieces of the linguistic puzzle were beginning to

fall into place. Joseph Scaliger (1540–1609), French (later Dutch) Renaissance
scholar and one of the founders of literary historical criticism, who incidentally
also gave astronomers their Julian Day Count, could employ the way the
various languages of Europe expressed the concept of ‘god’ to divide them
into separate groups (Table 1.3); in these we can see the seeds of the Romance,
Germanic, and Slavic language groups. The problem was explaining the rela-
tionships between these diVerent but transparently similar groups. The initial
catalyst for this came at the end of the sixteenth century and not from a
European language.
By the late sixteenth century Jesuit missionaries had begun working in
India—St Francis Xavier (1506–52) is credited with supplying Europe with
its Wrst example of Sanskrit, the classical language of ancient India, in a letter
written in 1544 (he cited the invocation Om Srii naraina nama). Classically
trained, the Jesuits wrote home that there was an uncanny resemblance be-
tween Sanskrit and the classical languages of Europe. By 1768 Gaston Cœur-
doux (1691–1777) was presenting evidence to the French Academy that
Sanskrit, Latin, and Greek were extraordinarily similar to one another and
probably shared a common origin. A glance at our wordlist (Table 1.4), now
extended to include Greek and Sanskrit, indicates just how striking those
resemblances could be.
The correspondences between the language of ancient India and those of
ancient Greece and Rome were too close to be dismissed as chance and,
Table 1.3. Scaliger’s language groups based on their word for ‘god’
deus group gott group bog group theos group
Latin deus German Gott Russian bog Greek theo
´
s
Italian dio Dutch god Ukrainian bog
Spanish dio Swedish gud Polish bog
French dieu English god Czech buh

4 1. DISCOVERY
although similar equations had been noted previously, history generally dates
the inception of the Indo-European model to 1786 when Sir William Jones
(1746–94), Sanskrit scholar and jurist, delivered his address to the Asiatic
Society in Calcutta and observed:
The Sanskrit language, whatever be its antiquity, is of a wonderful structure; more
perfect than the Greek, more copious than the Latin, and more exquisitely reWned than
either, yet bearing to both of them a stronger aYnity, both in the roots of the verbs and
in the forms of grammar, than could possibly have been produced by accident; so strong
indeed, that no philologer could examine them all three, without believing them to have
sprung from some common source, which, perhaps, no longer exists: there is a similar
reason, though not quite so forcible, for supposing that both the Gothic and the Celtic,
though blended with a very diVerent idiom, had the same origin with Sanskrit; and the
old Persian might be added to the same family, if this were the place for discussing any
question concerning the antiquities of Persia.
Jones’s remarks contain a number of important elements. First, they suggest
that there is a language ‘family’ that comprises Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, Persian,
Gothic (Germanic), and Celtic. All these languages or language groups are
derived from a common ancestor—Jones is uncertain whether this common
ancestor is still spoken somewhere. And reprising an earlier tradition, he also
imagines that Germanic and Celtic are in some ways adulterated languages
that sprang from the blending of the original language with other elements that
made them appear less closely related to the three classical tongues.
Critical to this entire model is the actual evidence that the various languages
belong to the same family. Jones did not base his conclusions on the transpar-
ent similarities found in wordlists but rather on the correspondences also found
Table 1.4. Comparable words in the classical languages and Sanskrit
English Latin Greek Sanskrit
mother ma
¯

ter me
¯
´
te
¯
rma
¯
ta
´
r-
father pater pate
¯
´
r pita
´
r-
brother fra
¯
ter phre
¯
´
te
¯
r bhra
¯
´
tar-
sister soror e
´
or sva

´
sar-
son fı
¯
lius huiu
´
ssu
¯
nu
´
-
daughter fı
¯
lia thuga
´
te
¯
r duhita
´
r-
dog canis ku
´
o
¯
ns
´
va
´
n-
cow bo

¯
s bou
7
sga
´
u-
sheep ovis o
´
(w)ı
¨
sa
´
vi-
pig suı
¯
nus hu
7
ssu
¯
kara
´
-
house domus do
7
da
¯
´
m
1. DISCOVERY 5
Avestan language was merely a dialect of Sanskrit, but by 1826 Rask demon-

strated conclusively that Avestan was co-ordinate with Sanskrit and not derived
from it. He also showed that it was an earlier relative of the modern Persian
language. The Celtic languages, which displayed many peculiarities not found in
the classical languages, required a greater scholarly eVort to see their full
incorporation into the Indo-European scheme. Albanian had absorbed so
many loanwords from Latin, Greek, Slavic, and Turkish that it required far
more eVort to discern its Indo-European core vocabulary that set it oV as an
independent language.
After this initial phase, which saw nine major language groups entered into
the Indo-European fold, progress was more diYcult. Armenian was the next
major language to see full incorporation. It was correctly identiWed as an
independent Indo-European language by Rask but he then changed his mind
and joined the many who regarded it as a variety of Iranian. This reticence in
seeing Armenian as an independent branch of Indo-European was due to the
massive borrowing from Iranian languages, and here the identiWcation of
Armenian’s original Indo-European core vocabulary did not really emerge
until about 1875.
The last two major Indo-European groups to be discovered were products of
archaeological research of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
Western expeditions to oasis sites of the Silk Road in Xinjiang, the westernmost
province of China, uncovered an enormous quantity of manuscripts in the Wrst
decades of the twentieth century. Many of these were written in Indic or Iranian
but there were also remains of two other languages which are now known as
Tocharian and by 1908 they had been deWnitely shown to represent an inde-
pendent group of the Indo-European family. It was archaeological excavations
in Anatolia that uncovered cuneiform tablets which were tentatively attributed
to Indo-European as early as 1902 but were not solidly demonstrated to be so
until 1915, when Hittite was accepted into the Indo-European fold. Other Indo-
European languages, poorly attested in inscriptions, glosses in Greek or other
sources, or personal and place names in classical sources, have also entered the

Indo-European family. The more important are Lusatian in Iberia, Venetic and
Messapic in Italy, Illyrian in the west Balkans, Dacian and Thracian in the east
Balkans, and Phrygian in central Anatolia.
If we prepare a map of Eurasia and depict on it the various major groups of
Indo-European languages (Map 1.1), we W nd that they extend from the Atlan-
tic to western China and eastern India; from northernmost Scandinavia south
to the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean. The family consists of languages
or language groups from varying periods. As we are currently painting our
Indo-European world with a broad brush, we can divide the Indo-European
groups into those in which there are languages still spoken today and those that
1. DISCOVERY 7