The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European Part 2 pps

Fortunately, one can interchange the reconstructed forms between the trad-
itional system and the variety of newly proposed systems in a relatively mech-
anical fashion (Table 3.12). The traditional system is understood by all, and
until the weight of scholarly opinion dismisses it for a single new system (if,
indeed, that should happen), it remains the one most often cited (as it is in the
remainder of this book for which, in any case, the exact phonological shape of
words is of secondary importance). The reconstructed phonemes and their
outcomes in the main Indo-European groups are summarized in Appendix 1.
Further Reading
There are a number of good introductions to the comparative method in linguistics such
as Anttila (1972), BloomWeld (1933), Hock (1991), Hoenigswald (1960), Lehmann
(1992), and Campbell (1998) and, at a more exhaustive level, Joseph and Janda
(2003). The Glottalic theory is found most extensively in Gamkrelidze and Ivanov
(1995) and more recent discussion of it in Salmons (1992), Barrach (2002, 2003). For
reality in reconstruction see Hall (1960).
Table 3.11. The labials in Wu
pphbh
À voice À voice þ voice
À aspiration þ aspiration þ aspiration
Table 3.12. The traditional Proto-Indo-European system and its glottalic equivalents
Traditional Glottalic Traditional Glottalic Traditional Glottalic
pp
[h]
b(p’) bh b
[h]
tt
[h]
dt’ dh d
[h]
k

ˆ
k
ˆ
[h]
g
ˆ
k
ˆ
’ g
ˆ
hg
ˆ
[h]
kk
[h]
gk’ gh g
[h]
k
w
k
[h]o
g
w
k’
o
g
w
hg
[h]o
3. RECONSTRUCTING PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN 53

4
The System
4.0 The System
Over two centuries of research into the structure of the Indo-European proto-
language have produced an enormous body of scholarship about the structure of
Proto-Indo-European, and the purpose of this chapter is merely to introduce an
extremely basicoutlineof thephonology and grammarof Proto-Indo-European.
4.1 Phonology
We have already discussed the reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European and we
can provide a roster of the Proto-Indo-European phonological system (Table
4.1). This amounts to about thirty-two phonemes, i.e. distinctive sounds,
although this could be increased depending on whether one wanted to admit
other sounds, e.g. diphthongs such as *ay, *ey, etc. We might remind ourselves
that the English language possesses forty-six phonemes (among the world’s
living languages the number of phonemes may range from about a low of
eleven to a high of 141).
In the last chapter we have already seen that there are a number of issues still
very much under debate. The Glottalic theory would alter the reconstructed
forms of the Wrst Wve series. Argument still persists on whether there were three
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
series of velars (palatal-, pure, and labio-) and, if there were not, what precisely

were the original velars. Many would only reconstruct the Wrst three laryngeals; a
few would require six laryngeals. Of the laryngeals presented, *h
1
leaves
an adjacent vowel unchanged while an *h
3
will change an adjacent *-e-toan
*-o-, e.g. *dideh
3
- > Greek dı
´
do
¯
mi ‘I give’. Both *h
2
and *h
4
change an adjacent
*-e-to*-a- (e.g. *peh
2
s- ‘protect’ > Latin pa
¯
sco
¯
‘I protect’ and *h
4
elbho
´
s ‘white’ >
Latin albus ‘white’ and Hittite alpa

¯
- ‘cloud’). Only word initially can we distin-
guish *h
2
and *h
4
, and then only when we have an Anatolian cognate. For *h
2
e-
we have ha- in Hittite harkis ‘white’ (cf. Greek argo
´
s ‘bright’), for *h
4
e- we have
a- (as in alpa
¯
-). (Some have suggested that initial *h
4
is preserved in Albanian
as h-, e.g. herdhe ‘testicle’ from *h
4
org
ˆ
hiyeh
a
- beside Hittite ark- ‘mount sexu-
ally’). Where we cannot distinguish between *h
2
and *h
4

we will use the symbol
*h
a
In some instances where a laryngeal is posited but we are uncertain which
laryngeal should be indicated we will employ *h
x
to indicate the unknown
laryngeal.
The liquids, nasals, and semivowels are listed in both their consonantal
and vocalic forms, i.e. if they are found between two consonants, they behave
like vowels (i, u), but when they are found next to a pure vowel they behave
like consonants (y, w; also written *iu and *uu). When the other forms
behave like vowels, this is indicated with a small circle below the form (m8 , n8,
l8, r8). Of the pure vowels, there are some who argue there was no PIE *a; others
suggest that there are no original long vowels: these are short vowels þ a
laryngeal.
Table 4.1. The Proto-Indo-European phonological system
unvoiced voiced voiced aspirate
labials pbbh
dentals tddh
palatals kggh
velars kggh
labiovelars k
w
g
w
g
w
h
sibilants s

laryngeals h
1
h
2
h
3
h
4
liquids r/3 l/C
nasals m/i n/
semivowels i/y u/w
vowels eoa
e
¯
o
¯
a
¯
4. THE SYSTEM 55
4.2 The Noun
The English noun is a poor place to start for discussing the structure of the
Indo-European noun. It distinguishes two numbers—singular and plural,
e.g. man/men—and only two cases, i.e. the nominative (subject) and the
genitive (possessive), e.g. man/man’s and men/men’s; it does not distinguish
grammatical gender as do many other modern languages such as French or
German. Proto-Indo-European distinguished three numbers (singular, dual,
and plural), there is (disputed, but generally accepted) evidence for grammat-
ical gender, and it distinguished eight cases. The dual, attested in a number of
the historical Indo-European languages, was employed for pairs, often natural
pairs, e.g. ‘eyes’, ‘ears’.

If we look at the Indo-European noun from purely a mechanistic standpoint,
we would begin with the root which would have to obey the rules laid down in
the preceding chapter regarding its structure, i.e. (C)CeC(C) To the root
might be added a variety of suYxes to create a stem and then Wnally the case
endings depending on number and perhaps gender. In some cases, the so-called
root-nouns, there are no suYxes before the case ending. Using R for ‘root’, S for
‘stem-creating suYx’, and E for ‘case-number-ending’, we might establish the
formula for an inXected word in Proto-Indo-European as R-(S)-E. The suYxes
sometimes still convey an earlier underlying meaning, e.g. the suYx * -trom
tends to indicate an instrument, e.g. *h
2
erh
3
-trom ‘plough’ from a verb
*h
2
erh
3
ye/o- ‘to plough’, while kinship names tend to have the suYx *-er-or
*-ter-, e.g. *sue
´
s-o
¯
r ‘sister’, *bhre
´
h
2
-te
¯
r ‘brother’. The commonest suYxes and

their functions are indicated in Table 4.2.
The basic case endings are outlined on Table 4.3. Most securely recon-
structed are the nominative, vocative, accusative, and genitive of the singular
and plural.
The nominative indicates the subject of the sentence and is formed either
with an -s or no ending, e.g. The
father sees (*ph8
a
te
¯
´
r). The vocative is used in
address, e.g. O father! (*ph8
a
ter). The accusative denotes the direct object, e.g.
I saw
the father (*ph8
a
te
´
rm8 ); the genitive indicates possession, e.g. the father’s
cow (*ph8
a
tro
´
s). The Wnal four cases are the least well preserved and many
languages have abandoned them. The ablative indicates motion from some
place, e.g. I ran
from father (*ph8
a

tro
´
s); the dative shows motion to somewhere,
e.g. I ran
to father (*ph8
a
tre
´
i); the locative indicates position, e.g. the Xea was on
the father (*ph8
a
te
´
r(i)); and the instrumental indicates the means by which
something is done or accompaniment, e.g. he went
with his father (*ph8
a
tre
´
h
1
).
The case endings are added directly to the root or to one of the suYxes. The
Wnal sound of the stem is used to deWne which particular type of declension the
56 4. THE SYSTEM
noun belongs to, e.g. *ne
´
p-o
¯
t ‘grandson’ is a t-stem. If we look more closely at

the nominative, accusative, and genitive of *ne
´
p-o
¯
t (Table 4.4) we note another
feature of Indo-European nouns—a shift in the accent and ablaut of the
pattern o
¯
$ o $ ø.
The complicated patterns of stress and ablaut are not found in the o-stems
(Table 4.5), the only stem forms to end in a vowel (if one presumes that the a
¯
-
stems are really eh
2
-stems) and which have their own set of endings (Table 4.6).
Table 4.2. Common Indo-European suYxes
Action nouns:
-o-, - eh
a
-, -men-, -es- [all root stressed], - ti-, -tu-, - tr/tn-, -r/n-, -wr/wn-, -yeh
a
-
Agent nouns:
-o
´
-, - te
´
r-, -me
´

n-, -e
´
s- [all stem stressed]
Nouns of instrument :
-tro- (also -tlo-,-dhro-, -dhlo-)
Deadjectival verbs:
-eh
a
- (‘become X’), -eh
1
-(‘be X’)
Deverbal verbs:
-se/o-, - eye/o- (iteratives, intensives)
-new-, - eye/o- (causatives)
-h
1
se/o- (desideratives)
Adjectives:
-o-, -yo-, -no-, o-, - k
ˆ
o-, -ro-, - lo- [all adjectives of appurtenance]
-to-, -wo-, -went-[adjectives of possession, ‘having X’]
-en-, - h
1
en- [‘characterized by X’]
Table 4.3. Basic case endings of the Indo-European noun
singular plural dual
nominative -s, -ø -es -h
1
(e)

vocative -ø -es -h
1
(e)
accusative -m -ns -h
1
(e)
genitive -(o) s -om -h
1
e/oh
x
s
ablative -(o) s; -(e)d -bh(y) os -h
1
e/oh
x
s
dative -ei -mus -me/oh
x
locative -i, -ø -su -h
1
ou
instrumental -(e) h
1
-bhi -bhih
1
4. THE SYSTEM 57
The dative of the o-stems reveals one of the more obvious instances of
dialectal diVerences in Indo-European. The dative plural ending *-oibh(y) os
is supported by Sanskrit, e.g. dative-plural vr8k-ebhyas ‘to the wolves’, but
Germanic (e.g. Gothic wulf-am), Baltic (e.g. Lithuanian vilk-ams), and Slavic

(e.g. Old Church Slavonic vlı
˘
k-omu
˘
) support the alternative ending *-omus.
The o-stems were the most productive form of declension. By this is meant
that through time, especially at the end of the Proto-Indo-European period and
into the early histories of the individual Indo-European languages, the o-stems
appeared to proliferate and replace other stem types. In Vedic Sanskrit, for
example, they constitute more than half of all nouns. High productivity is often
interpreted as evidence that the o-stems are a later declensional form than many
of the other stems. Highly productive forms are ultimately capable of replacing
many other forms as they provide the most active model by which speakers
might decline a form. For example, in Old English, plurals were formed in a
variety of ways, e.g. cyning $ cyningas (‘king/kings’) but cwe
¯
n $ cwe
¯
ne (‘queen/
queens’), feld $ felda (‘Weld/Welds’), spere $ speru (‘spear/spears’) and assa $
assan (‘ass/asses’). All of these were levelled out to the Wrst form with the s-
ending (that of the Proto-Indo-European o-stems) which became the most
productive. Regarding the last form, although many common enough words
were given an -an ending for the plural, e.g. guman ‘men’, froggan ‘frogs’,
naman ‘names’, tungan ‘tongues’, only one of these has survived, i.e. Old
Table 4.4. Accent shift in case forms
nominative *ne
´
p-o
¯

t
accusative *ne
´
p-ot-i
genitive *nep-t-o
´
s
Table 4.5. Endings of o-stem nouns
Singular Plural
nominative -os -o
¯
s (< *-o-es)
vocative -e-o
¯
s (< *-o-es)
accusative -om -ons
genitive -os -om
ablative -o
¯
d (< *-o-ed)-om
dative -o
¯
i (< *-o-ei)-oibh( y)os/-omus
locative -oi -oisu
instrumental -oh
1
-o
¯
is (< *-o-eis)
58 4. THE SYSTEM

English oxa $ oxan, though Middle English created a few new n-plurals by
adding the -n to nouns like childre, the plural of child ‘child’ to give modern
children.
The h
2
-stems are associated with feminine nouns, e.g. Lat dea ‘goddess’ and,
because of their absence in this use in Anatolian, these stems have been
regarded by many as late formations. The fact that Proto-Indo-European
also forms collectives in *-h
2
- (e.g. the Hittite collective alpas
˘
‘group of clouds’
from a singular alpas
ˇ
‘cloud’) has suggested that this was its original use and
that it later developed the speciWcally feminine meaning.
4.3 Adjectives
The adjectives are constructed and declined very much like the nouns, i.e. a
root, a stem, and an ending, with masculine and neuter endings corresponding
generally to the o-stems and the feminine endings utilizing the h
2
- endings. They
are declined according to gender with masculine, feminine, and neuter forms,
e.g. from the root *new- ‘new’, we have the nominative singular endings *ne
´
w-
os (masculine), *ne
´
w-om (neuter), and *ne

´
w-eh
2
(feminine), e.g. Latin novus,
novum, nova, Greek ne
´
os, ne
´
on, ne
´
a
¯
, Sanskrit na
´
vas, na
´
vam, na
´
va
¯
, and Old
Church Slavonic novu
˘
, novo, nova. The comparative suYx was either *-yes-or
(later) *-tero- while the superlative suYx was *-isto- or (again later *-(t) mo-).
4.4 Pronouns
Pronouns are one of the core elements of vocabulary. The evidence for pro-
nouns in Indo-European is abundant and includes personal pronouns (I, you,
Table 4.6. h
2

- (or a
¯
)-stem endings
Singular Plural
nominative -eh
2
-eh
2
es
vocative -eh
2
-eh
2
es
accusative -eh
2
m -eh
2
ns
genitive -eh
2
os -eh
2
om
ablative -eh
2
os -eh
2
om
dative -eh

2
ei -eh
2
mus
locative -eh
2
i -eh
2
su
instrumental -eh
2
eh
1
-eh
2
bhi
4. THE SYSTEM 59
etc.), reXexive pronouns (one’s self ), interrogative (who, which, how many),
relative (which), and demonstrative (this one, that one).
Proto-Indo-European had special personal pronouns for the Wrst and second
numbers (I, you) but not for the third (he, she, they) and instead employed a
demonstrative pronoun (that one) where we would use a personal pronoun. As
was the case with nouns, the personal pronouns (Table 4.7) were declined in the
singular, dual, and plural.
The Wrst person singular and the Wrst and second persons plural had two roots,
one forthe nominative andone forthe other cases.That situation is still preserved
in New English ‘I’ but‘me’ and ‘we’ but ‘us’ (‘you’ historically represents the non-
nominative only).However, there hasbeen a strongtendency in thevarious Indo-
European groups for one, usually the non-nominative, to replace the other. Thus
Sanskrit retains the Proto-Indo-European situation (i.e. aha

´
m ‘I’ but ma
¯
´
m ‘me’,
vaya
´
m ‘we’ but nas ‘us’, and yu
¯
ya
´
m ‘you [nom.]’ but vas ‘you [acc.]’) but in later
Indic all three show replacement of the nominative by the non-nominative. The
same threefold replacement pattern is shown by Old Irish at its earliest attest-
ation. In bothItalic and Greek we Wnd the Wrst and second persons plural with the
same replacement at their earliest attestations. In Slavic it is only the second
person plural that is aVected while in Tocharian the non-nominative of the Wrst
person singular is extended to the nominative while the nominative and non-
nominative of the Wrst and second persons plural merge so completely that it is
hard to say which was the dominant ancestor (e.g. Tocharian B wes ‘we/us’ from
Proto-Indo-European *wei þ *nos, yes ‘you’ from *yuh
x
s þ *wos (one should
note that Tocharian -e- is the regular outcome of Proto-Indo-European *-o-).
Given that nominative pronouns were normally only used for emphasis (the
person and number of the subject was normally adequately expressed by
the ending of the verb), it is not surprising that the much more frequent non-
nominative shape would win out. What is a bit surprising is that in Baltic it is
the nominativeshape that replacesthe non-nominative onein the Wrstand second
persons plural.

The reXexive pronoun, used to refer back to oneself, was *se
´
we.
The Indo-European languages do not agree on a single relative pronoun, e.g.
the man
who killed the bear, and there are two forms that were widely used, i.e.
*yo- in Celtic, Balto-Slavic, Greek, and Indo-Iranian but *k
w
o- or something
Table 4.7. Personal pronouns
Singular Dual Plural
First *h
1
eg/*h
1
e
´
me *no
´
h
1
*we
´
i/*nos
Second *tu
´
h
x
*wo
´

h
1
*yuh
x
s/*wos
60 4. THE SYSTEM
similar in Italic, Germanic, Albanian, Armenian, Anatolian, and Tocharian.
This latter form is also found among the interrogatives, e.g. who?, which?, all of
which begin with *k
w
- (which we Wnd in Old English as hw- which then
metathesizes in the spelling [shifts the order of elements around] in New English
as wh-). For example, we have PIE *k
w
o
´
s,OEhwa
¯
, and NE who; PIE *k
w
o
´
d >
OE hwæt >NEwhat; and PIE *k
w
o
´
teros >OEhwæþer >NEwhether).
As there was no third personal pronoun this function had to be served by a
series of demonstrative pronouns such as *so (masculine), *seh

a
(feminine), and
*to
´
d (neuter) ‘that (one)’, the latter of which survived as Old English þœt > that.
An emphatic pronoun was also employed, i.e. *h
1
e
´
i ‘he, this (one)’, *h
1
ih
a
- ‘she,
this (one)’, and *h
1
id. The latter survives in New English as it. New English he
derives from another demonstrative pronoun, *kı
´
s ‘this (one)’. For every
question of ‘where’, ‘when’, ‘how much’, there was a corresponding pronoun
to indicate ‘there’, ‘then’, ‘that much’, e.g. PIE *to
´
r$*te
¯
´
r >OEþœ
¯
r >NEthere
or PIE *to

´
ti ‘so much, many’ > Lat tot ‘so much’ (see Chapter 24).
4.5 Numerals
Numbers tend to be one of the more stable elements of any language (although
even these can be replaced) and some of the basic numerals are presented in
Table 4.8 (see Section 19.1).
Volumes have been written about the Indo-European numerals as they
provide evidence for the construction of a counting system. The number ‘one’
Table 4.8. Some basic numerals
1 *h
1
oi-no-s NE one, Lat u
¯
nus, Grk oı
´
ne
¯
‘ace on dice’
2 *dwe
´
h
3
(u)NEtwo, Lat duo, Grk du
´
o
¯
, Skt dva
`
$dve
´

3 *tre
´
yes NE three, Lat tre
¯
s, Grk treı
u
s, Skt tra
´
yas
4 *k
w
e
´
twor-NEfour, Lat quattuor, Grk te
´
ssares, Skt catva
¯
´
ras
5 *pe
´
nk
w
e NE Wve, Lat quı
´
nque, Grk pe
´
nte, Skt pa
´
n

˜
ca
6 *(s)we
´
ks NE six, Lat sex, Grk he
´
ks, Skt s
_
a
´
s
_
7 *septm
´
8 NE seven, Lat septem, Grk hepta
´
, Skt sapta
´
8 *h
x
ok
ˆ
to
¯
´
(u)NEeight, Lat octo
¯
, Grk okto
¯
´

, Skt as
_
t
_
a
¯
´
$ as
_
t
_
a
´
u
9 *h
1
newh
1
m8 NE nine, Lat novem, Grk enne
´
a, Skt na
´
va
10 *de
´
k
ˆ
m8 (t)NEten, Lat decem, Grk de
´
ka, Skt da

´
s
´
a
20 *wı
¯
k
ˆ
m8 tih
1
Lat vı
¯
gintı
¯
, Grk eı
´
kosi, Skt vim
_
s
´
atı
´
30 *trı
¯
-k
ˆ
omt(h
a
) Lat trı
¯

ginta
¯
, Grk tria
¯
´
konta, Skt trim
_
s
´
a
´
t
100 *k
ˆ
m8 to
´
m NE hundred, Lat centum, Grk hekato
´
n, Skt s
´
ata
´
m
1000 *tuh
a
s- k
ˆ
m8 tyo
´
s-/*ghesl(iy)os NE thousand; Grk khı

¨
lioi, Skt saha
´
sram
4. THE SYSTEM 61
is singular, ‘two’ is dual, and ‘three’ and the higher numerals are plurals except
for the number ‘eight’ which appears to have originally been a dual. This
apparent anomaly presupposes one to imagine ‘eight’ as ‘two fours’ and that
*h
3
ek
ˆ
teh
3
(u) ‘eight’ contains the basal element *k
w
et- in ‘four’, but the phono-
logical distance is very great. When we examine the numerals ‘ten’, ‘twenty’,
etc., we see the element *-k
ˆ
m8 t- which was no doubt an abstract counting
concept, a unit of some kind, on which were based ‘ten’ (two-units), ‘hundred’
(big unit), and, in some areas of the Indo-European world (including
Germanic), ‘thousand’ (fat hundred).
4.6 Particles and Conjunctions
The Indo-European languages preserve a number of earlier particles of speech.
For example, negation was made with the particle *ne ‘not’ or *g
ˆ
hi ‘certainly
not’ or *meh

1
if it were a prohibition, i.e. ‘do not!’. There were also particles of
time and place that have changed little, e.g. *new- ‘now’. The main connective
particle was *-k
w
e ‘and’, e.g. Latin -que, which would be suYxed to the Wnal
word in a series (e.g. Senatus Populusque Romanus ‘the Senate People-and
Roman’; see Section 24.5).
4.7 Prepositions
In English we require prepositions to indicate position or motion; in Proto-
Indo-European these would not have been so much required because the
diVerent case endings already indicated location (locative), motion to (dative)
or from (ablative), and accompaniment (instrumental). Nevertheless, preposi-
tions were required to specify more closely location or movement and there is a
fairly large number reconstructed to Proto-Indo-European, e.g. *ni ‘down-
ward’, *peri ‘over’, *pro ‘before’, *som ‘together’ (see Section 18.2).
4.8 Verbs
The reconstruction of the verbal system is the most complex feature of the
Proto-Indo-European language. DiYculties arise both because of its internal
complexity and because it would appear that there were more dialectal diVer-
ences involving the verb within Proto-Indo-European than was the case with
the other major grammatical classes. In consequence there is less agreement
62 4. THE SYSTEM
among Indo-Europeanists about the verb than there is about the noun or
adjective. These are some of the basic features almost all would agree with:
1. As was the case with the noun, the verb was also conjugated in three
numbers: the singular (I eat), the plural (we eat), and the dual (we two eat).
2. There were two voices, i.e. indications of whether the subject acted on
something else or (on behalf of ) himself. There was, therefore, an active
voice (I wash the child ) and a medio-passive (also called the ‘middle’) voice (I

wash myself ). There is no pure passive in Proto-Indo-European (The child was
washed by the mother) but the medio-passive could, in the proper context, be
used passively as well as medio-passively.
3. The tenses included the present (I eat), the aorist (I ate), and the perfect (I
have eaten)—though the perfect has left no trace in Anatolian and many Indo-
Europeanists, therefore, would take the perfect to be a late addition to the
Proto-Indo-European verbal repertoire of tenses, added only after the separ-
ation of pre-Anatolian from the rest of the Indo-European community. In
another restricted set of languages there was yet another past, the imperfect
(I was eating). The best evidence for an inherited imperfect comes from Indo-
Iranian, Greek, and Armenian, and thus this imperfect may reXect a south-
eastern innovation; other IE groups having the imperfect, Slavic, Italic, and
Tocharian, may all have innovated independently. There is only scattered
evidence of a future (I will eat) and, again, that evidence is not from Anatolian
but it does occur on both the extreme east of the Indo-European world (Balto-
Slavic and Indo-Iranian) and the extreme west (Celtic) so it may have been
another late addition in Indo-European—otherwise the future must have been
rendered with the present or the optative.
4. There may have been four moods: indicative (plain statement of objective
fact), injunctive (perhaps mild commands or prohibitions), optative (intentions
or hoped for action), and imperative (commands). In the Anatolian languages
there is only a distinction between the indicative and imperative. In non-Anato-
lian Indo-European there are greater or lesser traces of a Wfth mood, the sub-
junctive (potentiality, possibility).
5. A series of derivational suYxes could be employed to alter the meaning, e.g.
the suYxes *-eye/o- and *-neu- could be added to form a causative, e.g. *ters-
‘dry’ but *torse
´
ye/o- ‘to make dry’; -eh
2

- changed a noun or adjective into a verb
with those qualities, e.g. new- ‘new’ but *neweh
2
- ‘make new’ (e.g. Latin nova
¯
re
‘make new’, Greek nea
´
o
¯
‘re-plough’, Hittite newahh- ‘make new’).
The personal endings of the verb were divided into two major conjugations,
each with a primary and a secondary set of endings (Table 4.9). The conjuga-
tions are distinguished by the shape of the singular person endings in the present
tense. The Wrst conjugation is traditionally called the ‘athematic’ conjugation
4. THE SYSTEM 63
(there being no theme-vowel between the root or stem and the person-number
ending) while the most important subtype of the second conjugation is the
‘thematic’ verbs (which have an *-e-or*-o- after the root or stem and before
the person-number endings). The primary endings were used in the present (and
future) of the indicative. The secondary endings were used for the non-present
tenses of the indicative, and for the injunctive, optative (and subjunctive). The
diVerence between the primary and the secondary endings of the First Conju-
gation active is basically the addition of the particle *-i, which is argued to be the
same particle seen in the locative case and hence it carried (once) the meaning of
‘here and now’. First conjugation verbs generally have a singular where the root
vowel is e and a plural which shows a zero-grade. This interchange can be seen in
the verb *h
1
es- ‘to be’ (Table 4.10). The reXexes of this verb are also shown for

Latin, Greek, Sanskrit, and Hittite; we can see that Sanskrit has been the most
conservative in preserving the interchange of a full-grade and a zero-grade in
this verb.
Table 4.9. Proto-Indo-European personal endings
Active Middle
First Conj
Second Conj Thematic
First Conj Second Conj
sec/prim prim sec sec/prim prim/sec
1st -m(i)-oh
2
-om -h
2
e
´
(r)-oh
2
e(r)
2nd -s(i)-eth
2
e -es -th
2
e
´
(r)-eth
2
e(r)
3rd -t(i)-ei -et -o
´
(r)-eto(r)

1st -me(s)-omes -ome -medhh
2
-omedhh
2
2nd -te -ete -ete -dhwe -edhwe
3rd -ent(i)-onti -ont -nto
´
(r)-onto(r)
Table 4.10. The verb *h
1
e
´
s- ‘to be’ in the present active indicative
PIE Latin Grk Sanskrit Hittite
Singular
1. *h
1
e
´
s-mi sum eimı
´
a
´
smi e
¯
smi
2. *h
1
e
´

s-si es eı
u
$ essı
´
a
´
si e
¯
ssi
3. *h
1
e
´
s-ti est estı
´
a
´
sti e
¯
szi
Plural
1. *h
1
s-me
´
s sumus esme
´
n sma
´
s eswani $ esweni

2. *h
1
s-te
´
estis este
´
stha
´
esteni
3. *h
1
s-e
´
nti sunt eisı
´
sa
´
nti asanzi
64 4. THE SYSTEM
We have already encountered a second conjugation thematic verb in *bher-
‘carry’ and its forms are indicated in Table 4.11, along with the reXexes in
Latin, Greek, and Sanskrit (Hittite has no simple thematic verbs).
In addition to suYxes and endings, there were changes that could be made to
the beginning of the verb as well. These comprise the augment and reduplica-
tion. The augment was merely the addition of a particle *h
1
e- to the beginning
of the root. This was used to indicate the past tense and was therefore associ-
ated with the imperfect and the aorist, e.g. Sanskrit a
´

-bharam, Greek e
´
-pheron,
Armenian e-ber indicate a Proto-Indo-European *h
1
e-bher-om ‘I carried’.
The second technique of changing the beginning of the word is reduplication
which involves, more or less, repeating the initial consonant followed by the
vowel e or i, e.g. the verbal root *derk
ˆ
- ‘see’ yields Sanskrit dadars
´
a: Greek
de
´
dorka < Proto-Indo-European *de
´
-dork
ˆ
e ‘he/she has seen’. In some cases
nearly the entire root would be reduplicated, e.g. Sanskrit va
´
rvarti ‘turns’
<*wer-w(e)rt
The participles formed from verbs were of great importance and were formed
by the suYxes *-e/ont-, e.g. *bher- ‘carry’ but *bher-ont- ‘carrying’, *-wes- for
the perfect and *-mh
1
no- for the middle. The participles were then declined like
adjectives.

4.9 Derivation
Proto-Indo-European clearly had a rich system of both verbal and nominal
derivation, the description and illustration of which would require a large book
in itself. However a couple of examples of the derivational processes will give
the reader a partial insight into the system and allow him or her better to
understand and evaluate the lexical evidence oVered up in later chapters in
support of the reconstruction of various semantic Welds.
Table 4.11. Second conjugation of *bher- ‘to carry’ in the present active indicative
PIE Latin Greek Sanskrit
Singular
1. *bhe
´
r-oh
2
fero
¯
phe
´
ro
¯
bha
´
ra
¯
mi
2. *bhe
´
r-eth
2
e fers phe

´
reis bha
´
rasi
3. *bhe
´
r-ei fert phe
´
rei bha
´
rati
Plural
1. *bhe
´
r-omes ferimus phe
´
romen bha
´
ra
¯
masi
2. *bhe
´
r-ete fertis phe
´
rete bha
´
rata
3. *bhe
´

r-onti ferunt phe
´
rousi bha
´
ranti
4. THE SYSTEM 65
The Wrst example (Table 4.12) shows a number of productive nominal and
verbal derivatives from Proto-Indo-European *steh
2
- ‘stand’. Each of the
derivatives illustrated is reXected in at least three Indo-European groups
which makes it relatively likely that the derivation dates to Proto-Indo-Euro-
pean times, rather than being the result of independent creations in the stocks
where it is attested.
Table 4.12. Nominal and verbal derivatives of *steh
2
- ‘stand’
Present Tense *stı
´
-steh
2
-ti ‘he/she stands (up)’
[cf. Skt tı
´
s
_
thati,Avhis
ˇ
tati, Grk hı
´

ste
¯
si, Lati sistit]
Aorist Tense *h
1
e
´
-steh
2
-t ‘he/she stood (up)’
[cf. Skt a
´
stha
¯
t, Grk e
´
ste
¯
]
Verbal Derivatives
(1) Stative *steh
2
-eh
1
-ti ‘he/she is standing’
[cf. Lat stat, OHG sta
¯
t $ ste
¯
t, OIr ta

¯
‘is’, OCS stoitu
˘
]
(2) w-derivative
(no apparent change in
meaning)
*steh
2
-w- ‘stand’
[cf. Lith sto
´
via ‘stands’, Goth sto
¯
jan ‘to stand’, Grk
stoa
¯
´
‘marketplace’ (< ‘where one stands’)]
Nominal Derivatives
(1) -o
´
-*-sth
2
-o
´
- ‘standing’
[cf. Skt pra-stha- ‘stable, Wrm, solid’, OIr ross
‘promontory’]
(2) -to

´
-*sth
2
-to
´
- ‘standing, placed’
[cf. Skt sthita
´
- standing’, Lat status ‘placed’, Grk
stato
´
s ‘standing, placed’, OIr fo-ssad ‘strong’,
ON staþr ‘obstinate’
(3) -tı
´
-*sth
2
-tı
´
- ‘standing, erection’
[cf. Skt sthı
´
ti-‘stay, sojourn’, Grk sta
´
sis ‘place, setting,
erection [of a statue]’, Lat statim ‘Wrmly, steadfastly’,
NE stead ]
(4) -tlo-*sth
2
-tlo- ‘something standing’

[cf. Lat obsta
¯
culum ‘obstacle’, OE staðol ‘support’,
Wels distadl ‘worthless’, Lith sta
˜
kle
˙
s [pl.] ‘loom’]
(5) -no-*ste
´
h
2
-no- ‘standing, place’
[cf. Skt stha
¯
na- ‘place’, Grk a
´
ste
¯
nos ‘unfortunate’, Lith
sto
´
nas ‘place’, OCS stanu
˘
‘stand’]
(6) -men-*ste
´
h
2
-men- ‘place for standing’

[cf. Skt stha
¯
´
man- ‘seat, place’, Grk ste
¯
´
mo
¯
n ‘warp’, Lat
sta
¯
men ‘warp’, Lith stomuo
˜
‘statue’]
66 4. THE SYSTEM
Table 4.13. Derivational tree of *h
2
eh
x
- ‘be hot, burn’ (cf. Palaic ha
¯
- ‘be hot )
First Second Third
‘Generation’‘Generation’‘Generation ’
Derivatives Derivatives Derivatives
(1) *h
2
e
´
h

x
-ti-
‘heat’
[cf. OIr a
¯
ith ‘kiln’]
(2) *h
2
e
´
h
x
-mr
˚
‘heat’
[cf. Grk e
ˆ
mar ‘day’,
Arm awr ‘day’
(< *‘heat of day’)]
(3) *h
2
eh
x
-ter-
‘burner’ > ‘Wre’ (3a)*h
2
eh
x
-tr-o-

‘burnt’ [cf. Lat a
¯
ter ‘black’]
[cf. Av a
¯
tars
ˇ
‘Wre’] (3b)*h
2
e
´
h
x
-tr-o-
‘Wery, hot’
[cf. Latv a
˜
trs ‘quick,
sharp, hot’]
(3bi) *h
2
e
¯
h
x
tro
´
- ‘quick’
[cf. OHG a
¯

tar-]
(3c)*h
2
eh
x
-tr-eh
a
-
‘Wre-place, hearth’
(3ci) *h
2
eh
x
-tr-iyo-
‘of the hearth’
[cf. Lat a
¯
trium ‘atrium’
<*‘Wre-hall’,
(3d )*h
2
eh
x
-ter-ye/o-
‘make Wre, kindle’
[cf. Arm ayrem ‘kindle’]
(4) *h
2
eh
x

-s- ‘burn’ (4a)*h
2
eh
x
-s ‘ash’
[cf. Hit ha
¯
s ‘ash, potash’]
(4ai) *h
2
eh
x
-s-o- ‘ash’
[cf. Skt a
¯
sa- ‘ash’]
(4b)*h
2
(h
x
)-s-te
´
r-
‘burner’ > ‘ember’ >
‘star’
[cf. Grk aste
¯
´
r ‘star’, Lat
ste

¯
lla ‘star’, NE star]
(4c)*h
2
eh
x
-s-eh
a
-
‘burning place, hearth’
[cf. Lat a
¯
ra ‘altar; hearth’,
Hit ha
¯
ssa ‘hearth,
Wre-altar’]
(4d )*h
2
eh
x
-s-no-‘Wery’
[cf. OIr a
¯
n ‘Wery’]
(Cont’d.)
4. THE SYSTEM 67
The second illustration is presented in the form of a (sideways) tree diagram
(Table 4.13) and attempts to demonstrate the progressive nature of Indo-
European derivation where one derivative presupposes another. In this ex-

ample some of the derivatives are supported by only one Indo-European
branch but the nature of the derivational process is such that derivatives at
one point in the ‘tree’ presuppose derivatives ‘higher up’ (i.e. to the left) in the
tree.
A Wnal illustration (Table 4.14) gives examples from Old English and
Greek of the role that ablaut, the interchange of vowels, plays in Proto-Indo-
Table 4.13. (Cont’d.)
First Second Third
‘Generation’‘Generation’‘Generation’
Derivatives Derivatives Derivatives
(4e)*h
2
eh
x
-s-dh-
‘burn’
(no detectable diVerence)
(4ei) *h
2
eh
x
-s-dh-eh
1
-
‘be burning’
[cf. Lat ardeo
¯
‘burn’]
(4eii) *h
2

eh
x
-s-dh-ro-
‘burning’ [cf. Toch B
astare ‘pure’]
Table 4.14. Illustration of Indo-European ablaut in derivation
(PIE *sed- ‘sit’ and *pet- ‘Xy’ )
Old English Greek
Vowel
ø nest ‘nest’ ptero
´
n ‘feather’
<*ni-sd-o
´
s ‘sit down [place]’
e sittan ‘sit’ pe
´
tomai ‘Xy’
<*sed-ye/o-
setl ‘settle’
<*sed-lo-
o gesæt ‘act of sitting’ pota
´
omai ‘Xy hither and thither’
<*-so
´
dos
e
¯
sæ

¯
t ‘lurking-place’
<*se
¯
deh
a
-
o
¯
so
¯
t ‘soot’ po
¯
ta
´
omai ‘Xy about’
<*so
¯
dos ‘what settles’
68 4. THE SYSTEM
European derivation. If we take the vowel *-e- as basic, the system of ablaut
might be diagramed as follows:
ø $ e > o, e¯>o¯.
Table 4.15. Schleicher’s Tale
G
w
r
˚
h
x

e
¯
´
ih
2
o
´
wis, k
w
e
´
syo wl8h
2
ne
´
h
a
ne h
1
e
´
st, h
1
e
´
k
ˆ
wons spe
´
k

ˆ
et, h
1
oinom ghe g
w
r
˚
h
x
u
´
m
wo
´
g
ˆ
hom we
´
g
ˆ
hontm8 h
1
oinom-k
w
eme
´
g
ˆ
h
a

m8 bho
´
rom, h
1
oinom-k
w
eg
ˆ
hme
´
nm8 h
x
o
¯
´
k
ˆ
u
bhe
´
rontm8 .H
2
o
´
wis tu h
1
ek
ˆ
woibh(y)os weuk
w

e
´
t: ‘k
ˆ
e
¯
´
rh
a
eghnuto
´
r moi h
1
e
´
k
ˆ
wons
h
a
e
´
g
ˆ
ontim8 h
a
ne
´
rim8 widn8tbh(y)o
´

s: h
1
e
´
k
ˆ
wo
¯
s tu wewk
w
o
´
nt: ‘k
ˆ
ludhı
´
,h
2
o
´
wei, k
ˆ
e
¯
´
r ghe
h
a
eghnuto
´

r, n8sme
´
i widn8tbh(y)o
´
s: h
a
ne
¯
´
r, po
´
tis, h
2
e
´
wyom r
˚
wl8h
2
ne
´
h
a
m sebhi k
w
r8ne
´
uti nu
g
w

hermo
´
mwe
´
strom ne
´
g
ˆ
hi h
2
e
´
wyom wl8h
2
ne
´
h
a
h
1
e
´
sti.’
To
´
dk
ˆ
ek
ˆ
luwo

¯
´
sh
2
o
´
wis h
a
e
´
grom bhuge
´
t.
Vocabulary
bhe
´
r- ‘carry’
bho
´
ros ‘what is borne, a load’ (from *bher-)
bheug- ‘flee’
g
ˆ
hme
´
n- ‘man’
ghe intensifying particle
g
w
hermo

´
s ‘warm’
g
w
r
˚
h
x
- ‘hill’
g
w
r
˚
h
x
u- ‘heavy’
h
1
e
´
k
ˆ
wos ‘horse’
h
1
e
´
st- ‘is’
h
1

oinos ‘one’
h
2
o
´
wis ‘sheep’
h
a
e
´
k
ˆ
- ‘drive, pull’
h
a
e
´
k
ˆ
ros ‘Weld’
h
a
eghnuto
´
r ‘pains, is painful’
h
a
ne
¯
r ‘man’

h
x
o
¯
k
ˆ
u ‘fast’
k
ˆ
e
¯
r ‘heart’
k
ˆ
leu- ‘hear’
k
w
e ‘and’
k
w
o
´
s ‘who’ (genitive k
w
e
´
syo)
k
w
er- ‘make’

me
´
g
ˆ
h
a
- ‘large’
moi ‘me’
ne ‘not’
ne
´
g
ˆ
hi ‘not at all’
(Cont’d.)
4. THE SYSTEM 69
Any further discussion takes us into realms of detail unintended for this
book. But as an exercise in some of the principles, the reader is invited to tackle,
with attendant glossary, the complete text of Schleicher’s tale (Table 4.15).
Further Reading
Good recent surveys of Proto-Indo-European can be found in Fortson (2004), Meier-
Brugge (2003), Szemerenyi (1996), Tichy (2000), and Beekes (1995); see also Lockwood
(1969); the most noteworthy earlier classical accounts can be found in Meillet (1937) and
Brugmann (1897–1916). Specialist studies include Benveniste (1935, 1948), JassanoV
(2003), Kuryłowicz (1964, 1968), Lehmann (1952, 2002) Lindeman (1987), Mayrhofer
(1986), Schmalstieg (1980), Specht (1944); syntax is discussed in Friedrich (1975) and
Lehmann (1974). For Schleicher’s tale (Schleicher 1868), see also Lehmann and Zgusta
(1979); other examples of extended Proto-Indo-European text can be found in Sen
(1994), Danka (1998), and Macjon (1998).
Etymological dictionaries of Indo-European include Buck (1949) and Delamarre

(1991) which are both arranged semantically, and Pokorny (1959) which remains the
starting point for most discussion; there are also Mann (1984–7) and Watkins (1985);
encyclopedic presentations are to be found in Gamkrelidze and Ivanov (1995) and
Mallory and Adams (1997). An index of the roots ascribed to Proto-Indo-European
can be found in Bird (1993).
Table 4.15. (Cont’d.)
nu ‘now’
n8sme
´
i ‘us’
po
´
tis ‘master’
r
˚
intensifying contrastive particle
sebhi ‘for oneself’
spe
´
k
ˆ
- ‘see’
to
´
d ‘that one’
tu ‘then’
we
´
g
ˆ

h- ‘move’
we
´
strom ‘clothes’ (< *wes - ‘to dress’)
wek
w
- ‘speak’
weid- ‘see’
wo
´
g
ˆ
hos ‘wagon’
wı
¯
´
h
2
neh
a
- ‘wool’
70 4. THE SYSTEM
5
Relationships
5.0 Linguistic Relationships
The Indo-European languages share both internal and external relationships.
The internal relationships are expressed as dialectal relationships among the
diVerent Indo-European languages while the external relationships are primar-
ily concerned with the Indo-European language family and how it relates to
others of the world’s language families.

5.1 Internal Relationships
We have already seen that within any of the Indo-European groups, there are
also subgroups. For example, the East Slavic languages of Russian, Belorussian,
and Ukrainian are all much more closely related to one another than any of them
is related to Polish or Serbo-Croatian, two other Slavic languages. This situation
represents subgrouping (Eastern Slavic) within an Indo-European language
group (Slavic). What interests us here is, to what extent can we speak
of subgroupings within Indo-European itself? August Schleicher (1861–2)
proposed one of the earliest models of the relationship between the diVerent
Indo-European groups (Fig. 5.1) that portrayed the groups as branches stem-
ming from a common trunk (Stammbaum), and the concept of a family
tree, although often maligned as oversimplistic, is still the primary method
5.0 Linguistic Relationships 71
5.1 Internal Relationships 71
5.2 External Relations 81
5.3 Genetic Models 83
employed in indicating the interrelationships of the Indo-European languages.
The problem with the tree’s simplicity is that the branching of the diVerent
groups is portrayed as a series of clean breaks with no connection between
branches after they have split, as if each dialectal group marched away from
the rest. Such sharp splits are possible, but assuming that all splits within Proto-
Indo-European were like this is not very plausible, and any linguist surveying the
current Indo-European languages would note dialectal variations running
through some but not all areas, often linking adjacent groups who may belong
to diVerent languages. This type of complexity, which saw each innovation
welling from its point of origin to some but not all other speakers (dialects,
languages), is termed the ‘Wave theory’ (Wellentheorie). A detailed example is
provided in Figure 5.2.
The ‘Wave theory’ provides a useful graphic reminder of the ways diVerent
isoglosses, the lines that show the limits of any particular feature, enclose some

but not all languages. However, their criteria of inclusion, why we are looking
at any particular one, and not another one, are no more solid than those that
deWne family trees. The key element here is what linguistic features actually
help determine for us whether two languages are more related or less related to
one another. A decision in this area can be extraordinary diYcult because we
must be able to distinguish between features that may have been present
throughout the entire Indo-European world (Indoeuropeia has been employed
North European
PIE
Asiatic-South
European
South European
Indo-Iranian
Iranian
Indic
Celtic
Italic
Albanian
Greek
Slavic
Baltic
Germanic
Balto-Slavic
Figure 5.1. Schleicher’s family tree of the Indo- European languages
72 5. RELATIONSHIPS
to describe this concept) and have dropped out in some but not others against
those features that are innovations in only some of the diVerent groups. The
historical linguist is principally looking for shared innovations, i.e. are there
traces of corresponding developments between two or more language groups
that would indicate that they shared a common line of development diVerent

from other language groups? Only by Wnding shared innovations can one feel
conWdent that the grouping of individual Indo-European linguistic groups into
larger units or branches of the tree is real.
Before looking at the picture as a whole, we will review the evidence for those
relationships that Wnds fairly general consensus.
5.1.1 Anatolian and Residual Indo-European
Most linguists will argue that Proto-Anatolian was the Wrst Indo-European
language to diverge from the continuum of Proto-Indo-European speakers;
there are also a considerable number who would argue that the split was made
so early that we are not dealing with a daughter language of a Proto-Indo-
European mother but rather a sister language (Fig. 5.3). Acceptance of this
latter model is the foundation of the Indo-Hittite hypothesis, though many
linguists who believe in the early separation of Proto-Anatolian would not use
the term ‘Indo-Hittite’ but rather continue to use the term Indo-European.
2
3
1
4
5
6
Celtic
Germanic
Italic
Greek
Balto-Slavic
Indo-Iranian
Armenian
Albanian
Figure 5.2. A ‘wave model’ of some of the interrelationships of the Indo-European
languages

5. RELATIONSHIPS 73
The antiquity of the separation of Anatolian from the rest of Indo-European
is argued on several grounds. The Wrst is obviously Anatolian’s own antiquity:
it is the earliest Indo-European group attested in the written record which
begins c.2000 bc. More important is the fact that when Hittite (the earliest
and most substantially attested Anatolian language) is compared with the other
Anatolian
Indic
Nuristani
Iranian
Armenian
Greek
Macedonian(?)
Slavic
Baltic
Thracian
Albanian, Dacian(?)
Prehellenic
Germanic
Tocharian
‘Illyrian’
Messapic
Phrygian
Italic: Latin
Venetic
Celtic: Irish
Middle Breton
Cornish
Welsh
‘Indo-Hittite’

Asiatic
Indo-European
North-West
Indo-European
Indo-European
Residual Indo-European
Figure 5.3. A modern tree diagram of the Indo-European languages suggested by Eric
Hamp (1990).
74 5. RELATIONSHIPS
Indo-European languages, especially with its closest contemporaries, Indo-
Iranian and Greek, it reveals on the one hand strikingly conservative features
and on the other hand an absence of forms that one would have expected in an
Indo-European language attested so early—how these absences are explained is
one of the fundamental issues of determining the relationship between Anato-
lian and the other Indo-European languages.
Among the conservative features of Anatolian is the preservation of one
laryngeal (*h
2
) and traces of another (*h
3
). Another is its productive use of
what are known as heteroclitic nouns. One of the more curious types of
declension reconstructed for Proto-Indo-European is nouns that have a stem
in *r in the nominative but in *n in all other cases. While few traces are found in
other Indo-European languages (where the stem is generally levelled one way
or the other, for example, OE has r in wæter but ON has levelled the same word
to n in vatn ‘water’), Hittite maintained this type as an active declension pattern
(e.g. Hit wa
¯
tar ‘water’ in the nominative but genitive witenas). Another con-

servative trait of Anatolian is the preservation of two separate conjugational
types characterized by diVerent person-number endings. One type, easily rec-
ognized as cognate with the type found in other Indo-European languages, has
-mi,-si,-ti as the endings of the Wrst, second, and third persons singular. The
other type, which has left only traces in the other IE groups, has the endings -hi,
-ti, and -i instead.
On the other hand, Anatolian has no dual (as found in both Greek and Indo-
Iranian), its verb has no subjunctive or optative (again unlike its Bronze Age
neighbours), and it is questionable (arguments go both ways) whether there are
any traces of a feminine in Anatolian. The augment *e-, which is found in the
other Bronze Age languages (Indo-Iranian, Greek) and all the surrounding
languages, i.e. Phrygian, Armenian, with possible traces elsewhere, is not found
in Anatolian. The combination of conservatism on the one hand with absence
of features found in the other two groups to emerge in the Bronze Age has led
some to suggest that Anatolian did not share in a number of the developments
that we Wnd in any of the other Indo-European languages because it was not
part of the Proto-Indo-European world when these developments occurred.
This supposition then leads to the hypothesis that Proto-Anatolian and Proto-
Indo-European were siblings of an earlier Proto-Indo-Hittite language.
Opponents to this theory are highly sceptical of employing absence of fea-
tures in Anatolian as evidence for greater antiquity. They have long argued that
as there were non-Indo-European languages in central Anatolia, it is just as
likely that the original features were lost as Anatolian was taken up by the
substrate population or employed initially as a trade language whose grammar
was simpliWed to facilitate intercommunication.
5. RELATIONSHIPS 75
5.1.2 Indo-Iranian
The sole uncontroversial subgrouping of Indo-European is Indo-Iranian, the
super-group, if you will, that unites the Indo-Aryan and the Iranian languages.
We have already seen that the similarities between Avestan and Sanskrit were

such that there was a period in Indo-European research when Avestan was
regarded as a dialect of Sanskrit. Table 5.1 illustrates this similarity in a much
cited comparison between a verse from the Avesta and its literal transposition
into Sanskrit. A comparison between the two texts reveals similarities that are
so strong that often one need do no more than make an expected sound change
in one language to eVect a translation into the other. The two languages are so
closely related that we can derive them from a common Indo-Iranian proto-
language. This means that between Proto-Indo-European and the Indo-Aryan
and Iranian groups, there was also a Proto-Indo-Iranian stage. To this group, it
might be noted, belongs one further subgroup. Only recorded since the nine-
teenth century, the Wve Nu¯rista
¯
ni (also termed KaWri, a term that means
‘inWdel’ and is hardly politically correct today nor since their conversion to
Islam is it any longer true) languages of the Hindu-Kush have provided
evidence that their ancestor does not appear to have been either Indo-Aryan
or Iranian but is more likely to derive directly from Proto-Indo-Iranian and
possibly represents a third ‘branch’ of the super-group although there are
arguments that set them closer to either Indo-Aryan or Iranian.
Precisely when this stage existed we cannot say, but we already have evidence
by c.1400 bc for the existence of a separate Indo-Aryan language. The evidence
Table 5.1. Yas
ˇ
t 10.6 from the Avesta and a Sanskrit translation
Avestan t
e
m amavant
e
m yazat
e

m
Old Indic ta
´
ma
´
mavantam yajata
´
m
Proto-Indo-Iranian *ta
´
ma
´
mavantam yajata
´
m
This powerful deity
Avestan su
¯
r
e
mda
¯
mo
¯
hu s
e
vis
ˇ
t
e

m
Old Indic s
´
u
¯
´
ram dha
¯
´
masu s
´
a
´
vis
_
t
_
ham
Proto-Indo-Iranian *c
´
u
¯
´
ram dha
¯
´
masu c
´
a
´

vis
ˇ
tham
strong, among the living the strongest
Avestan miŁr
e
m yaza
¯
i zaoŁra
¯
byo
¯
Old Indic mitra
´
m yaja
¯
iho
´
tra
¯
bhyah
_
Proto-Indo-Iranian *mitra
´
myaj a
¯
i jha
´
utra
¯

bhyas
Mithra, I honour with libations
76 5. RELATIONSHIPS