Talk:Proto-Indo-European language/Archive 1

message: To the tune of Yankee Doodle:
 Proto-Indo-European
 Was the mother tongue,
 But everyone who used to speak it
 Is now dead and gone.
An original composition by Kbh3rd
:Ha!  --MerovingianTalk 23:04, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
::http://math.uchicago.edu/~wald/lit/anything_goes.txt
 And though I'm just a steppe parparian,
 In two weeks I'll pe Tocharian,
 And it shows.
 Anything Koes.
 Like lightning (Dye:us forgive the simile),
 The Teutons are switching, Grimmily,
 All three rows.
 Anything Goes.
::dab 12:58, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, this is useful, because it is difficult to find both on and outside the internet. But for neadability purposes, could you use paradigms rather than just endings? --Caesarion 17:20, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

message: I came to the PIE page hoping to find some explanation of the ubiquitous asterisk
symbol at the beginning of many PIE-reconstructed words.  But, sadly, I didn't.
Wouldn't this be a good page to mention it on?
Steverapaport 18:45, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The meaning of the asterisk is exactly "This is a reconstructed word [i.e., not a word that was ever actually recorded anywhere in this form]." AJD 19:08, 5 Feb 2005 
well, you would have found iit, had you taken it upon yourself to read as far as line 3 where we say "The standard convention is to mark unattested forms with an asterisk" ...  dab (ᛏ) 22:13, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's that star thingy? 

message: The existence of the plain velars as phonemes separate from the palatovelars and labiovelars is disputed. In most circumstances they appear to be allophones of one of the other two series, and none of the daughter languages (with the possible exception of Albanian ) has reflexes of them that differ from the other two series.
This isn't still true, is it? I didn't think there was still any disagreement about this among scholars of Indo-European, and didn't Craig Melchert remove all doubt that these must have been different phonemes in Indo-European by showing that they have three distinct reflexes in Luwian?:
:*ḱeyor 'lies down' > zīyar(i)
:*kes- 'comb' > kisāi-
:*kwid 'what' > kui
AJD 01:56, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "mainstream" Indo-Europeanists (whom I thoroughly subjectively define as Jay Jasanoff and the people he respects) are convinced by Craig Melchert's Luwian evidence. But that doesn't mean the matter is now settled beyond all dispute. --Angr/comhrá 10:38, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Velars

message: *Deivos Verunos
:To regs eghest. So nepotlus eghest. So regs sunum evelt. So toso ceuterum precsquet: "Sunus moi guenhota!" So ceuter tom reguem evequet: "Ihgesuo deivom Verunom". So regs deivom Verunom uposesore nu deivom ihgeto. "Cluthi moi, pater Verune!" Deivos Verunos cata divos egveght. "Quid velsi?" "Velmi sunum." "Tod estu", vequet leucos deivos Verunos. Reguos poteni sunum geguenhe.
::this appears to be a PIE-ified  Proto-Indo-Aryan text, composed by one  S.K. Sen, see Talk:Proto-Greek language.
*Pater naseros (the Paternoster) 
**(Version 1)
**:Pater naseros cemeni, nomen tovos estu cventos, reguom tevem guemaght ad nas, veltos tevem cvergeto cemeni ertique, edom naserom dagheres do nasmebhos daghei tosmei letodque agosnes nasera, so lemos scelobhos naserobhos. Neque peretod nas, tou tratod nas apo peuces. Teve senti reguom, maghti deiromque bhegh entom. Estod.
**(Version 2)
**:Pater naseros cemeni, nomen tovos estu iseros, reguom tevem guemaght ad nasmens, veltos tevem cvergeto cemeni ed eri, edom naserom dagheres do nasmebhos tosmei daghei ed le agosnes nasera, so lemos scelobhos naserobhos. Neque gvedhe nasmens bhi perendom, tou bhegve nasmens melguod. Teve senti reguom, maghti ed deirom eneu entom. Estod.
*Aquan Nepot
:Puros esiem. Deivons aisiem. Aquan Nepot dhverbhos me rues. Meg moris me gherdmi. Deivos, tebherm gheumi. Vicpoteis tebherm gheumi. Ansus tebherm guemi. Nasmei gvertins dedemi. Adbherome ci sime guerenti! Dotores vesvom, nas nasmei cerddhemes. Aquan Nepot, dhveronus sceledhi! Dheghom Mater toi gheumes! Dheghemia Mater, tebhiom gheumes! Meg moris nas gherdmi. Eguheies, nasmei sercemes.
These example texts should not be included. Even correctly cited they are unencyclopedic in the extreme. We should mention that some people from Schleicher up to the present day have attempted to write texts in reconstructed PIE, and provide links to some of them, and explain why this practice is no longer considered scientifically feasible today. --Angr/ 03:58, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: cut texts

message: why didn't you just link to ? I couldn't find the texts via google since they are given as jpgs. Now, you are in violation of WP:CITE, WP:NOR, AND GFDL (the last only unless you are  Raphael Sawitzky yourself). You practically violate every principle of Wikipedia by your stubborn re-insertion of these texts. You still haven't given a reference for the Neptune prayer, and the Christian ones were just copied off some Christian website. This is not what we do here. I will revert your additions as vandalism from now on, unless you lighten up and start respecting policy. dab (ᛏ) 11:05, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Nixer

message: TEB728, Thank you for the link. 
dab, I am not Raphael Sawitzky, but you asked a link - a I give. But his translation different.
And, of course, he is not the author of the translations in http://www.christusrex.org/www1/pater/JPN-proto-indo-europ.html.
it is obvious because different technics and level.
TEB728 have given us the right link to the source.
--Nixer 15:02, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: TEB728

message: The articles about sound laws have different capitalisation (Sievers' Law, Edgerton's Law, Bartholomae's law, Szemerényi's law, Stang's law, Siebs' law) -- cf. also Indo-European sound laws#Sound laws within PIE. Is there any policy about such cases? Are these proper names? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 20:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not the sort of thing Wikipedia has policies about, but the Chicago Manual of Style says the word "law" should be lowercased in such cases. —Angr 20:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you move Sievers' Law? I did the rest but I could't move this one because I'm not an admin. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 21:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  —Angr 21:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalisation of sound laws 

message: When viewing this page in Firefox, the subscript numbers after the h's representing the laryngeals (*h₁, *h₂, *h₃ ) are invisible. They are however visible in Internet Explorer (oddly, since IE is normally held up to be the difficult one). --rossb (talk) 19:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm using Firefox, and they look fine to me. Does it help to use the  template? How do  look? —Angr 19:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I notice sometimes that table cell and line shaping is altered with subscripting/superscripting.  It may have more to do with that than anything else.  — Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 00:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The  template doesn't seem to help, and it doesn't just happen in tables. If I use the ordinary numbers with the html "sub" element rather than the special charactes, it looks fine, like this:(*h1, *h2, *h3 ). Similarly the subscript characters in Aeusoes1's signature look OK. The same problem occurs by the way in other articles dealing with the laryngeals. If it helps I'm using Firefox 3.0.6 on Windows Vista. --rossb (talk) 09:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Interestingly I've now tried it on another PC on Firefox 3.0.5 on Windows XP and it looks fine! --rossb (talk) 10:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subscript numbers 

message: Dʰ, bʰ and gʰ are sounds which are impossible to pronounce.
As far as I am concerned, PIE did not use them.
However, PIE did use dʱ and gʱ (plus variants of gʱ). Spacevezon (talk) 20:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: We're using the common way linguists transcribe PIE, which is very closely related to IPA, but detours in some regards.  — Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 21:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  bʰ, dʰ and gʰ 

message: I'm suprised this article has nothing on what amounts to basically a century of discussion on the syntax of early PIE with respect to its typological classification as nom/acc, erg/abs, or active/stative. A recent list of references on the ergative may be found here:http://versita.metapress.com/content/r26389132nk67172/fulltext.pdf. As for the active/stative hypothesis, recent lists of references and discussion may be found in Lehmann's 1993 Theoretical Bases of Indo-European Linguistics and Bauer's 2000 Archaic Syntax in Indo-European  —Preceding unsigned comment added by AD Messing (talk • contribs) 17:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ergative and Active hypotheses 

message: : add a large chart of core vocabulary with cognates in all major families (might be a good idea to move the full table to a separate article and include an excerpted table in this article)
Yeah, if a single new section triples the length of an article (other than a stub), my instinct would be to make a separate article instead.  And then (in this case) nominate it for deletion because WP:DICT. —Tamfang (talk) 06:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll happily move the table to a separate article, and take out some of items that are arguably not "core vocab", but I don't hardly think it qualifies as a dictionary.  This table began as an expansion of a table in Armenian language that has 40 PIE items along with cognates in Armenian, Modern English, Old English, Latin, Greek, and Sanskrit.  Meanwhile, there is a similar but shorter table in Tocharian languages that has 20 PIE items along with cognates in Modern English, Tocharian A and B, Old Irish, Latin, Greek, and Sanskrit, and a similar table in Lithuanian language that had 17 Lithuanian items along with cognates in Latin and Sanskrit.  There seemed an obvious need felt for tables of this sort, and it seemed like something that was more useful in a PIE article rather than duplicated in various different daughter languages -- although I realize now it would go even better in a page linked off of Indo-European languages rather than this page.  At 150 or so items this chart is somewhat larger than the 40 item Armenian chart, but hardly dictionary size, and its point is not to be a dictionary but a set of examples of how cognates evolved. Benwing (talk) 07:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  glossary 

message: I believe potentially that a number of sections in this article require the above rule to be applied to them, some examples are highlighted below along with a sentiment I have regarding the use of "unattested".
:"The Proto-Indo-European language (PIE) is the unattested," 
a good descriptor in one sense but I contend that the complexity "unattested" brings could be cleared with the inclusion of a more suitable adjective in its place. Use of 'Unrecorded' or extrapolation on the fact that the PIE was never physically stored would seem a better idea.
:"reconstructed common ancestor of the Indo-European languages, spoken by the Proto-Indo-Europeans. The existence of such a language has been accepted by linguists for over a century, and reconstruction is far advanced and quite detailed
:Scholars estimate that PIE may have been spoken as a single language (before divergence began) around 4000 BCE, though estimates by different authorities can vary by more than a millennium."
I think at a minimum the assertions I have bolded require evidence of deductive reasoning through referencing, but before putting this on the watchlist, I would appreciate hearing a more informed opinion on the subject to assist Wikipedia/Myself in deciding if this page would be a good use of time to tackle. BoredextraWorkvidid (talk) 18:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. 

message: The article Aorist is in need of editors who can help develop it, both in general and particularly in an IE overview section. If there's anyone who watches this page who can spare some time, your input would be much appreciated. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aorist 

message: from Talk:Shall_and_will#Future_tense_in_PIE:
According to an unsourced statement at Proto-Germanic#Verbs Proto-Indo-European had no future tense, contradicting this article. I think I have heard this from other places too. Count Truthstein (talk) 00:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a reference that mentions PIE future tense based. Please refer to item 9 here. 192.102.209.29 (talk) 23:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Answered at Talk:Shall and will#Future tense in PIE. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future tense in PIE 

message: So many similar sounding English words in Tamil, I doubt these classification,.
http://aruniyan.wordpress.com/2011/08/08/english-words-that-sounds-like-tamil-or-originated-from-tamil/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malarmisai (talk • contribs) 13:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No amount of original research would be enough because Wikipedia has a firm policy against inclusion of original research. For inclusion of a connection there would have to be significant published acceptance by respected linguists, and such acceptance does not exist. See Dravidian languages#Relationship to other language families for the current state of research. —teb728 t c 00:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

text: Dravidian languages are firmly excluded from PIE. Alexandre8 (talk) 01:30, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

text: There is a special class of theories that try to link different language families, usually considered highly speculative. For Indo-European, Uralic is definitely considered possibly related (however distantly). The Afro-Asian language family is second on the list. Those are the only two candidates that are taken seriously by mainstream scholars. Zyxwv99 (talk) 03:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  May need more research to include Dravidian languages with PIE 

message: Hi, is there anyone who has the PIE family tree from the home edition of American Heritage Dictionary?  I think it's like the one on this page, but, uh, "rounder."  OneWeirdDude (talk) 22:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are suggesting that we use it here, it is probably copyrighted and not licensed under a free license—and hence unusable. —teb728 t c 23:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, I got one. Why do you ask? Rwflammang (talk) 16:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Family tree of languages 

message: Proto-Slavic language was recently removed from the section "Generally accepted subfamilies (clades)". The reason, although not given in the edit summary, presumably was that Proto-Balto-Slavic language is already there, and lower clades are omitted elsewhere in this list (eg. no Proto-Iranian language). As the removal was subsequently reverted, I'm asking whether this link should really remain. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 19:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I would assume that was the reason. We don't list Indic, for example. — kwami (talk) 19:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proto-Slavic a generally accepted subfamily? 

message: I still can not believe that the Finno-Urgic language tree does not fit in somewhere under the Proto-Indo-European hierarchy.  Especially since the Corded Ware and Comb Ceramic cultures overlapped each other, and did so during concordant time horizons.
I just can't believe it.
--Atikokan (talk) 05:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See argument from personal incredulity --Pfold (talk) 15:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You could fill a whole encyclopedia with a list of things some people just can't believe, yet which are true.  garik (talk) 16:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Also cf. Indo-Uralic languages. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 22:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

text: The Uralic languages do indeed have a very close relation to Indo-European, in three ways. First, Proto-Uralic borrowed a great number of words from North-Iranian (which was spoken in Central Asia during the Bronze Age). Secondly, the PIE system of inflections is thought to be related to the Uralic system of postpositions. This is most likely due to the Indo-Europeans being a hybrid people, a combination of Cucuteni-Tripolye A, Sredny Stog, and TRB, all three of which overlapped in west-central Ukraine circa 3700 BCE giving rise to Cucuteni-Tripolye B (the most likely candidate for PIE status). Postpositions could very well have been a common feature of Pontic-Caspian languages in pre-PIE times, in which case this feature could have been inherited by proto-Uralic. And finally, Uralic-speaking peoples have lived for thousands of years in close proximity to Indo-European-speaking peoples, in particular Baltic, Slavic and North-Iranian. Zyxwv99 (talk) 03:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Proto-Uralic and North Iranian are from different ages. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Uralic_language СЛУЖБА (talk) 09:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

text: Check Y-DNA haplogroups N1c1 and R1a1a. They are not closely related, and N1c1 is related to Samoyedic N1b. Also, both are non-native to Europe, so Corded Ware and Comb Ceramic are not Urheimat. СЛУЖБА (talk) 23:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finno-Ugric 

message: Currently the intro reads:
During the 19th century, the vast majority of linguistic work was devoted to reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European or of daughter proto-languages such as Proto-Germanic, 
This seems a very bold claim. Ref?
Ordinary Person (talk) 14:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vast Majority of Linguistic Work 

message: Proto Indo-Europeans were Turk!
Since proto indo-europeans originated in Central Asia so they were Turk
they were
T
U
R
K
Humanbyrace (talk) 00:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Proto-Indo-European didn't arise in Central Asia, but on the Ukrainian steppes.  But since a certain species of wild ass also arose in Central Asia...  --Taivo (talk) 01:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

text: Hey, did you know Turks came from Siberia, not SW Asia? I guess that makes the Turks Mongols, right? 97.89.216.62 (talk) 15:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proto Indo-Europeans were Turk! 

message: I believe displaying just the pronouns reconstructed by Beekes and Sihler is inadequate and rather inaccurate, since there are more regular forms displayed on Wiktionary. Can we add these or substitute them? 97.89.216.62 (talk) 15:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standard forms 

message: http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v4/n4/full/ncomms2656.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.97.65 (talk) 22:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update 

message: I'm just wondering, should "proto-Slavic" be included in the "Daughter proto-languages". I know "Proto-Balto-Slavic language" is already there, but proto-Balto-Slavic and proto-slavic are different. Would proto-Slavic instead be a 'granddaughter language' or something.Hypershock (talk) 04:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's best just to list Proto-Balto-Slavic as it's the immediate descendant. If we start adding later derivatives, the list will get out of hand, with a "Proto-X" added for every conceivable subgrouping whether plausible ("Proto–Insular Celtic") or not ("Proto–Western Germanic"). +Angr 20:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that Balto-Slavic is still a controversial hypothesis and that Slavic is a well-understood and distinct language group, it would make sense to make a separate node out of it. 78.49.239.15 (talk) 15:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that "Balto-Slavic is still a controversial hypothesis and that Slavic is a well-understood and distinct language group" does in NO way make a need for a separate node. A separate node would imply that most scientists don't recognise Balto-Slavic, which is not the case. СЛУЖБА (talk) 09:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

text: Proto-Slavic appears to be a comparatively recent (Iron Age) hybrid an an unknown North Iranian language (something akin to Scythian) and an unknown west-central Baltic language (something between Lithuanian and Old Prussian). Zyxwv99 (talk) 18:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Where did You get this bullshit about North Iranian and Baltic from? СЛУЖБА (talk) 09:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

text: What a load of nonsense. The Slavic languages show some affinity to the Baltic languages, and is clearly a centum language and not a satem one like the Indo-Iranian group at all. ToadBrother 5:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me, Slavic is satem, not centum. twitter.com/YOMALSIDOROFF (talk) 06:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

text: Yes, something like a "granddaughter". СЛУЖБА (talk) 09:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proto-Slavic  

message: It's common to see diphthongs written as ei, eu, ou etc. but many sources also use ey, ew, ow and so on. Since the second part of these diphthongs was underlyingly a consonant, and was parallel to other consonantal resonants like l, r, m, n, I think we should use y and w in this article. CodeCat (talk) 14:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notation: use ey/ew instead of ei/eu? 

message: It is not quite honest to say "The only vowels that are generally accepted as such among linguists are the mid-vowels *e, *o, *ē and *ō." This is of course a fact since you only need a minority of a few to make a hypothesis "not generally accepted". But the community opinion would beg to differ from Beekes and company. Would someone with a bit more specialist knowledge than I do remove the parentheses and delegate the Leidener school to a footnote? All the best  85.220.22.139 (talk) 18:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vowels 

message: "As there is no direct evidence of Proto-Indo-European language, all knowledge of the language is derived by reconstruction from later languages using linguistic techniques such as the comparative method and the method of internal reconstruction. PIE is known to have had.... "
If there's no direct evidence for it then how can we 'know' anything? We can believe, confidently believe or wildly speculate, but know?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.29.202.215 (talk) 04:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Gravity is just a theory too. We don't "know" that gravity exists, do we? CodeCat (talk) 16:11, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  clarification question 

message: Maybe the Wikipedia article should have a section on Proto-Indo-European in pop culture and just American culture in general.  There's the American Heritage Dictionary, which has had an appendix of PIE roots since the 1970s,  a 1992 book "A garden of words" about flower name etymologies by Martha Barnette, that "Atlantean language" made by Mark Okrand and appearing in "Atlantis: The Lost Empire" in 2001, and does anybody know anything about the presumably made-up language spoken by the baddies in "10,000 BC" by Warner Bros 2008?  That sounded similar to PIE.  "Finnegan's Wake" by James Joyce is also another big one.  I once read a commentary on that book that made reference to Joyce' usage of PIE roots and related studies to formulate his garbled masterpiece.
Mention of these works could help increase public awareness of academic thought, something Wikipedia was founded to do.
35.8.218.54 (talk) 00:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I kind of thought it was a nice change to have a Wikipedia article that didn't have an "In popular culture" section for a change. +Angr 10:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. It doesn't disturb anyone, as long as a thick line is drawn. СЛУЖБА (talk) 09:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  References in popular culture  

message: "PIE was the first proposed proto-language to be widely accepted by linguists. Far more work has gone into reconstructing it than any other proto-language and it is by far the best understood of all proto-languages of its age. During the 19th century, the vast majority of linguistic work was devoted to reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European or its daughter proto-languages such as Proto-Germanic, and most of the current techniques of linguistic reconstruction in historical linguistics (e.g. the comparative method and the method of internal reconstruction) were developed as a result." (later it carries on just as bad or worse).
19th century linguists did not live in a bubble, they lived in a world in which Empire made the dominance and superiority of the British in particular and the Europeans in general self-evident. It was not a footnote, it was not a fantasy only indulged by the Nazi's, to say that this dominance by a contemporary, better organised and technologically advanced people with a will to dominate and conquer was an an echo of the dominance shown by the better organised, technologically advanced and conquest-obsessed Romans, and they were only doing what the Indo-Europeans had done, a group so dominant, that they had left their language across a whole region. - The British, dominating India and much of Africa, were just continuing in the old tradition.
It was like Darwin and evolution: contemporaries mixed the science with pseudosciences ("facial angle") and were often more interesed in the latter. Here linguistic research was mixed with racist myths. The introduction to this article shows an innapropriate level of credulity of these linguists and, by avoiding the question, implies that they were entirely neutral and objective.
It is not a footnote, it deserves a good place in any discussion of proto-indo-european. I'll quote this neat little website I've heard of, check it out, called Wikipedia (the entry is Master Race) "By the late 19th and early 20th centuries, it was posited that the Indo-Europeans (then generally also referred to as Aryans) made up the highest branch of humanity because their civilization was the most technologically advanced." (ie they were continuing the true indo-european tradition of imposing their language and rule over vast areas; those with vast empires (the British) or vast ambitions (the Nazi's) were the true descendants of the superior race, the Brahamans or Aryans of an earlier India). 77.98.32.90 (talk) 04:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can source this geopolitical history as being relevant to linguistic reconstruction, then please do. Otherwise it's WP:OR. And oh, please do also notice that the vast majority of early philologists / linguists were speakers of Indo-European languages, which as far as I can see gives reason enough for them to have concentrated on these languages without bringing in racial theories. --Thnidu (talk) 15:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  re: the rest of the terrible introduction: You can't seperate Indo-European from Aryan  

message: When De Saussure first proposed the laryngeal theory many scholastic linguists rejected his claim (they were indeed imitating the story of dogmatic papal councellors who did hang Galileo for him stating the truth about earth being spherical) but own empirical proofs from Anatolic Indo-European showed that Saussure was right!
We are here confused by this scholastic artithmetico-algoritimical approach wich kidds us with unprunucable words such as bhedh (is bh standing for beh or bhe!!?) and leads us to an imaginary aberrated frozen unrealistic unreal and never spoken Proto-Indo-European.
It's in fact a relic or let me say an ARTEFACT of the ancient germano-nazocentristo-linguistical paradigm wich saw in Sanskrit the perfect model of the Proto-Indo-European language but now we know that most of the 19 th and pre-Hitler 20 th century Indo-Europeanist field was just RUBBISH
Indeed after the recent phylogenetical Bayesian study we know that:
1/Armenia/Anatolia is the homeland of proto-indo-european  
2/The Larynegal theory is right
3/The glottalic theory is right
4/Anatolic then Armeno-Greek then Aryan then Tocharian are the real model of Proto-Indo-European language
5/Indic is Aryan spoken by local non Indo-European indians
6/Iranic is older (because more diverse see Sughni, Scythian, Pashto, Yaghnobi huuuge internal diversity ...) and more archaic than Indic
7/Proto-Indo-European language's glottalics correspond to Proto-Semitic empohatics
8/Proto-Indo-European language's larynegeals correspond to Proto-Semitic larynegals
9/Proto-Indo-European language and Proto-Semitic are closely related (phonetically, lexically, structurally and morphophonologically[ablaut]) and they are forming 2 branches of the Lislakh phylum and are diachronically connected with the Hassuna-Half-Natufian-Araxes cultural (sites that saw the oldest attested Swastika motifs) complex wich is associated with the J1 and J2 hg's and the southwestern+westernasiaitic autosomal components (see Behar 2010)
10/Finally the Nominal system of Proto-Indo-European language was initially regular and similar to the proto-Semitic one
indeed according to Edward Lipinsky Proto Semitic had 7 cases (I have added to his model 2 vocative cases retrieved from modern Arabic) 
Proto-Semitic cases/singular/dual/plural
1/vocative1(no ending)/-/-/- 
2/nominative/-u/-aa/-uu
3/genitive/-i/-ay/-ii
4/accusative/-a/-ay/-ee
5/locative/-um/-um/-um (present in Arabic "labbayka allahUM labbayk"=(we) pray-you toward you Allah (we) pray-you
6/benefactive/-ish/-ush/-uush (akkadian "zikaram daqitu sarrISH"=I killed the man for the king)
7/comitative (by, with)/-am/-am/-am (ancient Hebrew yodAM=by hand)
8/dative(toward)/-ah/-ishum/-ishuum (ancient Hebrew BabelAH=toward Babel)
9/vocative2/-aah/-ayh/-uuh (modern Arabic "abAH"=o father)
As you can notice the case endings are regular and similarly pre proto-Indo-European (before the case erosion due to migration of proto-Indo-Europeans from their homeland in Western Asia to Europe and India) case system should be as the below
Proto-Indo-European cases/singular/dual/plural
1/vocative/-h2/-ah2/-oh2
2/nominative/-s/-aas/-oos
3/genitive/-h1/-ah1/-oh1
4/accusative/-h1m/-ah1m/-oh1m
5/locative/-h3/-ah3m/-oh3m
6/dative/-ah/-ahm/-ohm
7/ablative/-eh3/-ah3/-oh3
As for the Proto-Indo-European instrumental case it's merely the post-agglutination of Lislakh (Semitic+Indo-European common) bh1 (Ensglih by, Semitic bi) to the nouns we need to make the instrumental case of
Humanbyrace (talk) 15:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's sad that such pseudo-scientific drivel convinces the naive.  --Taivo (talk) 16:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

text: Ahhh communist drivel. My kinda stuff. Alexandre8 (talk) 18:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

text: The bit about Galileo is especially cute. —Tamfang (talk) 06:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

text: No, "theoretical" isn't completely accurate, it implies a lack of acceptance.  In any case, in linguistic terms, "reconstruction" implies theoretical and unattested already.  --Taivo (talk) 19:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

text: " 'Reconstruction' subsumes 'theoretical'." OK, I'm not being dragged into an edit war over this anal approach. Djathinkimacowboy 19:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article grossly fails to give Wikipedians a coorect and accurate synthesis of the Proto-Indo-European language propblem 

message: "The Proto-Indo-European language (PIE) is the linguistic reconstruction of a common ancestor of the Indo-European languages spoken by the Proto-Indo-Europeans."
What was said above still applies(see 19, comments by Djathinkimacowboy), except this version is even worse. It has the same problem as the following sentence: "I had a dream in which, following the re-counts that followed from the disputed result of the 2016 US presidential election, the first in recent times in which all campaigns were financed by public funds, I was declared President." (what is fact, what is dream/hypothesis?) 
It was slightly better in oct 2011: "The Proto-Indo-European language (PIE) is the reconstructed common ancestor of the Indo-European languages, spoken by the Proto-Indo-Europeans."
My version:
"The Proto-Indo-European language (PIE) is the name given to reconstructions of the proposed common ancestor of modern and ancient Indo-European languages, with most theories positing the existance of a people, the Proto-Indo-Europeans, whose language went on to dominate the areas now inhabited by Indo-European speakers."
77.98.32.90 (talk) 04:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a protolanguage not "reconstructions". It's not most theories it's all theories. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 11:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

text: Isn't it still a "proposed common ancestor"?  Otherwise it reads as if we know that a particular common ancestor existed, which we happened somehow to lose, and need to reconstruct.  p.s.  Why do we need an IP pronunciation guide for English words in English Wiki?  Unless "proto" is considered to be not English, but it's fairly readable nonetheless. Richardson mcphillips (talk) 22:35, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Otherwise it reads as if we know that a particular common ancestor existed, which we happened somehow to lose, and need to reconstruct." This is exactly the case. PIE existed, but it wasn't written down so the only evidence we have for it are the languages that descended from it. CodeCat (talk) 00:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  I changed what was a terrible 1st sentence 

message: Article says: "The traditional (pre-laryngeal) reconstruction included only one fricative, *s". But /y/ is also a fricative.--2A02:2168:83F:8280:0:0:0:2 (talk) 09:39, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: How so? CodeCat (talk) 12:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

text: y is an approximant. See the article Approximant consonant for an explanation of the difference. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 16:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Reconstruction of PIE was underway well before there was an International Phonetic Alphabet. Indo-Europeanists usually use their own system of notation, with some variations. PIE "y" is the equivalent of /j/. Of course, we can only speculate as to how these sounds were articulated by PIE speakers anyway, so /j/ is approximate. It could have been /ʝ/ or perhaps even some more fanciful possibility. – Greg Pandatshang (talk) 01:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is not /y/ a fricative? 

message: This article seems to have a lot of external links. I considered adding a "link farm" tag, and/or removing some of them, but figured it would be better to ask here first. Are all of those links essential to the article? Joefromrandb (talk) 02:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --Cornellier (talk) 20:59, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: I quite agree that the Further Reading needed pruning, so thanks to Cornellier for that. However, I think a small amount of baby has been thrown out with a lot of bathwater. Renfrew's work is surely important enough to list, since it's the main representative of the second most popular homeland theory - in fact it probably ought to be used as a reference in the body of the article. Also, Pokorny, as the fundamental work on etymology and IE roots, really needs to go back in my view. Any reason not to see reinstate these two? --Pfold (talk) 23:48, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry Pfold, I overlooked your comment above, just seeing this today. Pokorny and the Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch are mentioned in the section "Development of the theory" which precludes their presence in Further Reading. As for Renfrew he's certainly relevant in the context of the Anatolian hypothesis which is mentioned in the article. Readers can read about him at Anatolian hypothesis and in Indo-European migrations, Proto-Indo-Europeans, Proto-Indo-European homeland, etc. but I think he's slightly out of scope for this article. This article is about PIE. Talking about a less-favoured historical theory seems a little out-of-scope to me. --Cornellier (talk) 16:25, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further reading 

message: According to WP:LEAD, the lead should summarize the contents of the article. Its second and third sentences are:
* "Far more work has gone into reconstructing PIE than any other proto-language, and it is by far the best understood of all proto-languages of its age." How much work has gone into reconstructing other proto-languages is not discussed in the article. This is as it should be since the article is neither about research into proto-languages in general, nor primarily about the history of the disclipines that are used to understand it. 
* "The vast majority of linguistic work during the 19th century was devoted to reconstruction of PIE or its daughter proto-languages (e.g. Proto-Germanic), and most of the modern techniques of linguistic reconstruction such as the comparative method were developed as a result." As above, and per WP:BALASP this is giving undue weight to the history to secondary and tertiary topics. The article is about PIE. Comparative linguistics, the comparative method, Grimm's law, and so on, all of which have articles of their own, are secondary to that. The history of those is tertiary.
If the information is considered crucial it could be moved to the body of the article if an explanation of why this is relevant were included, along with citations, and with an objective quantification of "far more" and "vast majority".
Consider replacing those two sentences with a high-level description of what IE is. The article discusses at length PIE's relationship with various modern languages. Hence it is appropriate to mention that in the lead. As it is the lead is written as if the target audience were linguistics students, rather than the general public. --Cornellier (talk) 20:02, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds reasonable. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:04, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: What about starting a Proto-Indo-European Wikipedia? 188.108.108.25 (talk) 11:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid there is nobody alive who knows enough PIE to fill that Wikipedia with content... --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 19:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The real problem is there is no such thing as standard PIE.  Everyone has his own favorite reconstruction and notation, and there's the question of time depth, pre-PIE is very different from late common PIE.  See Schleicher's fable, which, interestingly, was used in the lamentable Prometheus (film). μηδείς (talk) 20:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The other problem is that our knowledge of the vocab is so limited that there would be few articles that could sensibly written in PIE...Ordinary Person (talk) 14:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that by now we have a generally accepted form of PIE. The forms reconstructed by Beekes and Sihler seem to be rather inaccurate and outdated. 97.89.216.62 (talk) 15:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proto-Indo-European Wikipedia 

message: Why is proto-Albanian not featured among the subfamilies? 184.153.89.10 (talk) 06:37, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: it's in the Subfamilies section --Cornellier (talk) 17:40, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

text: Same Quesition here, where is Albanian in the Subfamily List. @Cornellier, no its not. --2A02:AA16:5201:C380:B036:1897:F0D1:5DA0 (talk) 14:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I will include Albanian in to the subfamilies, explaining that it stands on its own group. I already have done that, but my edition was reverted. I'm trying again, with different wording.FlavianusEP (talk) 14:13, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subfamily Clades: Albanian? 

message: How would you say in PIE:
:"This user is able to contribute with a basic level of PIE"?
I'd like to make a userbox in the Hungarian wiki for it. Thank you. :) --El Mexicano (talk) 07:1 , 24 March 2009 (UTC)
::It's impossible to reconstruct syntax so there's no way to make any reasonable guesses about PIE word order.  Because of that, the userbox would also be a lie. Sorry to be a negative Nancy.  — Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 21:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Should those velars be palatalised velars, or are you an proponent of some theory that includes more pure velars than one often sees? – Greg Pandatshang (talk) 22:17, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  For "user" I would suggest *h₁éwHtōr, agent noun from the root *h₁ewH- "to help". It still survives as Latin adiutor, with the i- taken from the present stem by analogy. I would also just say "speaks a little PIE", which uses less complex grammatical structures. For "speaks", I'd say *bʰéh₂ti, a root present that survives in Greek and Latin. CodeCat (talk) 23:07, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you really wanted to write "PIE" as the language, it should at least get case endings, so PIEm for the accusative. Though it's also possible that such a construction would use the instrumental case instead, so PIEh₁. CodeCat (talk) 18:49, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

text: In the mainstream reconstruction, the plain velars and palatal velars are considered to have been different phonemes, and the palatal velars occurred much more often. There's probably something wrong with that, and it wouldn't at all surprise me if in the actual language of the proto–Indo-European people they were the same phoneme, but we have to go with the reconstructions we've got. AJD (talk) 17:45, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Has anyone ever reconstructed what PIE would be called by PIE speakers? I'm not aware of anything. In the absence of any evidence, I would suggest just translating it as "our language". – Greg Pandatshang (talk) 15:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  No idea. We can't even figure out what Proto-Germanic speakers called themselves or their language, and that's much more recent. CodeCat (talk) 18:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: So, perhaps "nos dn̥ǵʰwā́m", then? – Greg Pandatshang (talk) 22:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

text: No, of course it never occurred in Italian, French, Spanish (cento, cent, cien). Or in Old English (cirice) Or in Swedish (skyldig). Never. --ColinFine (talk) 19:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  A question (just for fun) 

message: I've read that in Early PIE there was no feminine or masculine gender, and that they both came from a split in an original animate gender. But couldn't the opposite be at least possible? What if the neuter gender came from either the masculine or feminine genders? Maybe the only reason why Hittite doesn't have them is because it split off from PIE earlier than the other daughter languages. Also, Proto Anatolian might've been influenced by Summerian (which distinguishes between human/non-human), resulting in a loss of the original two gender system.
I'd think that this theory would be consistent with the reconstructed PIE religion, which included the reverence of natural objects/phenomenon like oak trees, rivers, and lightning. They would've seen these objects as either having male or female characteristics, based on Celtic animism and the Vedic Sarasvati hymns. Idielive (talk) 20:38, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question Please 

message: Aʼar ṭn̥khwaʼs ṭlkés wretpertis komoini ḥenés wekʷspés ṭlkóʼom eʼes, meḳa-ṭlkóʼom spreḳ. Mējos wérḳom PIE upér ḥéntera ḥen-ṭlku wretper, kʷe phaṭ ḳneʿ ḥenóʼom ṭlkóʼom. m̥ḳaʼ ʼnéwn̥-leyp-km̥tóm ṭlkés-wérḳosjo wretpertis PIEés wē tósjo thukhtr̥-ṭlkés (e.g ḥen ḳénʼmn̥), kʷe mē néwosjo-teks-neḫ ṭlkés-wretpertis liḳ kʷiṭ-liḳ-sekʷ, to kawṭ-teḫej maḳ. Tóṭ teks-neḫs ḥel ḳneʿmn̥ PIEés kheph, kawṭ-teḫ ne wrej ṭlkés. Idielive (talk) 22:03, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I have undone your addition of the above, or some version of it, to the article. You have not indicated where it is from or how you came by it, and there seems no basis for it, so it is entirely original research, and so not appropriate for including in articles. PIE is not a language you can translate modern English or other modern texts into. There is too much uncertainty both in the pronunciation of individual words and in areas of the vocabulary that are unknown. Even words that have been reconstructed might have had very different meanings five thousand or more years ago. There is simply not enough information to reconstruct a text like that, and there likely never will be.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 17:50, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation of this Article into PIE 

message: This page uses a mixture of American and British English. MOS:RETAIN says "When no English variety has been established and discussion does not resolve the issue, use the variety found in the first post-stub revision that introduced an identifiable variety. The established variety in a given article can be documented by placing the appropriate Varieties of English template on its talk page." The earliest version of this page made by Quincy uses British English, so may I standardise the article to British English? Jackpaulryan (talk) 02:11, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it should use one variety of English, not a mix of more than one, and if there are no strong national ties it should be the one first used in the article.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 03:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  American versus British English 

message: The verb section says:
"The following table shows a possible reconstruction of the PIE verb endings from Sihler, which largely represents the current consensus among Indo-Europeanists."
Question 1: Where is the source of this "largely represents the current consensus" claim?
Question 2: Why is the Sihler chart on this page different from the Sihler chart on the Proto-Indo-European verbs page?
Thank you! --Jackpaulryan (talk) 20:02, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sihler 

message: I think the article should have a Infobox language added to it. To be consistent it is (was) a language. At some point in the future we are probably going to scrape all the language infobox data and bring it into WikiData, thus also the the Proto languages should have infoboxes added.--Alternative Transport (talk) 22:13, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template Infobox language 

message: Maybe I missed it, but I think English should be on the chart/image "Classification of Indo-European languages". I didn't see it. 
Liberty5651 (talk) 22:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I see it. Rua (mew) 22:51, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

text: Look near the bottom in the 7th column. —teb728 t c 23:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  English Missing From Chart?  

message: The topic pre-proto-indoeuropean is simply redirected to PIE. This needs to be a separate article as much could be said about ideas for even earlier stages of the language before any splits. For example ideas about the state before the development of feminine gender or a possibility of an animate-inanimate opposition. Could anyone help out here. Beekes Lehmann or Meier-Brügger or such to the rescue perhaps? Memory fails me. CecilWard (talk) 09:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pre-Pie 

message: Is there a "Proto-Indo-European in fiction" section somewhere? SharkD  Talk  01:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I am thinking about adding a one. The "In popular culture" section of the Schleicher's fable article mentions Proto-Indo-European's use in the film Prometheus. I have seen the movie, so I know this is true, but the sources provided do not seem up to Wikipedia's standards (it uses blogs as sources). Jackpaulryan (talk) 01:21, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It is hardly possible for such an abstruse subject to appear in fiction.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.232.113 (talk) 11:03, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  nevertheless it is true because I myself have seen that scene mentioned in the movie, where a character listens to a lecture on PIE and then studies Schleicher’s Fable and - the character being an artificial life-form - does a scarily good job at correct pronunciation of PIE when reading the fable aloud. CecilWard (talk) 09:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

text: There is very little entertainment in comparative linguistics generally.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.232.113 (talk) 11:16, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

text: This source claims that PIE was used for the character names in the novel Redemption of Althalus; does that count? AJD (talk) 16:07, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  In fiction? 

message: I got here from a pathway starting at the article on Ferdinand de Saussure, and note that there's no direct link to that article, although of course one can get there via the article on laryngeal theory. Does he warrant a mention? I hesitate to do it myself, being so ignorant. Ishboyfay (talk) 02:12, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saussure 

message: I have read one or two articles that claim that the reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European, as presently conceived, is pure fantasy, and most likely bears no accurate relationship to an actual common ancestor of the relevant languages. On the other hand, this article seems to present the reconstructions pretty much as a fact accepted by all. It would be useful for the article to mention the extent to which there is agreement or disagreement on the main body of the reconstruction, and to mention the dissenting voices, if only to dismiss them. Otherwise, it is hard for the non-specialist to choose between the different opinions. 2A00:23C5:4B91:AB00:ECD4:C5AB:54B3:691E (talk) 02:34, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know a modern linguist that rejects PIE as "pure fantasy". Some reconstructions are more secured than others: the "wheel" or "sky/god" are attested in almost every branch; while the word for "wine" is a debated issue. One misconception about linguistics is that it reconstructs words based on similar sounds. This is wrong. They are based on a common grammar (a series of grammatical cases in Indo-European), which makes it nearly impossible for the similarities to be due to chance or loans. Then we use sound laws to reconstruct the most probable form in the proto-language. This method has proven predictive: we had anticipated the existence of laryngeals before we discovered the Hittite language; and we found inscriptions in Celtic or Germanic that accurately fits in the proto-Celtic and proto-Germanic forms we had reconstructed. Now, linguists do not agree on everything, as it is the case in any field: but virtually all of them accept the Indo-European languages as a family, with a common ancestor for which we can reconstruct words. On the other hand, I know other scholars (like archeologists) who may debate the very existence of PIE. From what I read, they make basic mistakes in linguistics, like comparing sounds without looking at grammar/cases. We cannot therefore give voice to critics outside of the field of linguistics on this Wikipedia page. It would be like linguists debating the theory of relativity among citations of astrophysicists. Now for the accuracy of reconstructions, I would say that PIE words have not change a lot in 200 years of historical linguistics. The modifications are only on details that don't affect the general sound-form. It would be like linguists debating if the accurate reconstruction of the English word "dwelling" is "dyelling", "duelling" or "dwelling". Azerty82 (talk) 08:26, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Which articles qualify PIE reconstructions as "pure fantasy"? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:50, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Jean-Paul Demoule's 2014 book has caused a controversy and debate in France (1, 2, etc.) But he's an archeologist and his book contains numerous linguistics mistakes. That said, his arguments that we cannot necessary equal a language with a people is legitimate, although the same could be said for archeology: they cannot equal a material culture with a people. Azerty82 (talk) 10:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  (OP) I believe that a statement in the introduction to the effect that the present reconstruction of PIE is broadly accepted by modern linguists would be beneficial, if this is indeed the case. This may seem obvious to people who already know about the subject, or may seem to be implied by the existence of the article at all, but it is in fact non-obvious to lay people who may have read sceptical opinions and may themselves instinctively feel that such a reconstruction, in any sort of detail, is far-fetched. 2A00:23C5:4B91:AB00:ACF3:885E:2E34:5B56 (talk) 00:17, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  How plausible is all this? 

message: I would find it very helpful if there were clear links in the lead to the other major language "groups", with a quick overview of what the differences are. Hard to know what something is without knowing what it is not. Boundaries give form. Tx.. 184.66.50.117 (talk) 19:18, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  What Context is PIE surrounded by? 

message: and  disagree about the wording of the lead.
*Old verson: Proto-Indo-European (PIE) is the linguistic reconstruction of the ancient common ancestor of the Indo-European languages
*ExperiencedArticleFixer's version: Proto-Indo-European (PIE) is the reconstructed ancient common ancestor of the Indo-European languages.
I suggest as concise alternative:
*Proto-Indo-European (PIE) is the reconstructed common ancestor of the Indo-European languages.
Drop "ancient" (which sounds weasel-ish), drop "linguistic" (which is redundant, per page title), PIE is reconstructed. Of course, PIE is also a reconstruction, since this word can describe both the process and its result. But "reconstructed common ancestor" sounds better and is the common wording in textbooks about historical linguistics. –Austronesier (talk) 09:09, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the intro should make it clearer that PIE is theoretical, and clarify the relationship of the reconstructed elements. I propose:
 --Spasemunki (talk) 10:04, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur with Spasemunki.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: "No direct record of Proto-Indo-European exist. Its proposed features have been derived by  linguistic reconstruction from documented Indo-European languages" is nice and terse, and pretty much the same as stated in the last phrases of the second paragraph, just less flowery. I would swap the order of the two statements, putting "no direct record of Proto-Indo-European exists" at the end. And of course trim the second para to avoid repetition. –Austronesier (talk) 17:35, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Go on, and we'll see how it looks.(KIENGIR (talk) 04:07, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

text: Good. My whole point was logical: the lede was conflating a language with the reconstruction of a language, which are two different things. I think it looks better now. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 08:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  But PIE is the language, not the reconstruction. The reconstruction is of PIE. PIE would have existed with or without our attempts to reconstruct it. Rua (mew) 09:43, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: My point, precisely. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 09:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

text: The existence of PIE is a theory proposed to explain the relationship of the IE languages. We can't describe the existence of PIE independent of the reconstructions as a fact. The reconstructions argue for the plausibility of it existing, but aren't sufficient to establish that it did. --Spasemunki (talk) 10:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: My point is not about whether we can talk of PIE has having existed or not. That is irrelevant. Even if it did not exist, when the article says "PIE is estimated to have been spoken as a single language from 4500 BC to 2500 BC", it is talking about the language (even if it never existed), not about the reconstruction (which we know exists). My point is categorial and logical. The fact that the language, even if fictional, is conceptually different from its reconstruction should be obvious by the fact that the language is believed to have existed thousands of years ago, while everybody knows that the reconstruction is only modern. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 11:15, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, Spasemuki has right, despite what you say, no contradiction, since an unverified hyphothesis obviously may be interpolated by a modern reconstruction (though both are hyphothesis')(KIENGIR (talk) 21:24, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, what Spasemunki said is mostly correct, but irrelevant to my point. Please explain the meaning of "an unverified hyphothesis [sic] obviously may be interpolated by a modern reconstruction". It does not make any sense to me, not to mention the misspellings. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 23:20, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was replying to  referring to the existence of the language. Tried to use the indent level to make that clear, but Talk isn't great for keeping threads straight. I think everyone is in agreement on the wording of the intro sentences. --Spasemunki (talk) 23:30, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I'm happy with it. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 23:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

text: Sorry for the misspelling. I wanted to point out there is not anachronism, and unverified hypothesis is naturally may be simulated by a late reconstruction, but both of them are imaginary.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:27, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you fail to see my point. As many logical points, it is both extremely simple and sometimes difficult to see. Think: both the PIE hypothesis and the reconstruction are modern, so none of them can be dated to 4000 BC. Ergo, the PIE referred to in the PIE hypothesis is not a reconstruction, but the actual language that is hypothesised to have existed in 4000 BC. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 23:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand you, I think just missing words may confuse us. You have right in your exact sentence now, but we should not forget hypothesised to have existed, so we may not refer anywhere that it have existed or needed to be existed, juts because a reconstruction is assumed (or assumed to be equal with the target of the hypothesis).(KIENGIR (talk) 00:19, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: What missing words are you talking about? Anyway, I agree with this now, except that I think that the mainstream scientific position is that it indeed existed. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 00:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Like in the beginning with estimated. Well, indeed we should be enough careful not to confuse mainstream scientific positions with facts.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:34, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, but if you understood my point, you'll see that it is irrelevant whether it existed or is only estimated to have existed. Either way, the PIE hypothesis does not refer to the modern reconstruction (although, as you said, the reconstruction could be believed to be equivalent to the hypothesis' target). --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 00:39, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  If the mainstream of linguistic sources says that PIE existed, then that is the majority position Wikipedia should take as well. It would be WP:OR or WP:UNDUE to do otherwise. Rua (mew) 09:04, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

text: Regarding this last point, now we are saying "theorized", which I hope you find to be better than "hypothetical", since a theory in the broad sense is just how we see something that is currently unobservable. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 13:51, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: added a chart that shows the Prakrit and modern Indo-Aryan languages of India descended from Sanskrit. My recollection is that this is not accurate according to current research. Can you provide sources for this? There are two sources in the intro to the article that suggest it is accurate, but one is not definitive (saying 'most' modern Aryan languages are descended from Sanskrit) and the other is from a publication on a topic only indirectly related to linguistics. I've also started a discussion on the Commons page for the chart itself here. --Spasemunki (talk) 23:00, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Some more input: With such claims it is necessary to distinguish Classical from Vedic Sanskrit, as they are distinct in syntax, morphology, phonology and lexicon, and for the purposes of linguistics they should always be considered distinct languages (as are the different stages of e.g. Egyptian, Latin, or Middle Chinese). The question of whether Sanskrit is ancestral to modern Indo-Aryan languages (and, if so, which) of course depends on the definition of Sanskrit. Based on the studies I've seen, there is no chance at all that the Classical language can be considered ancestral to any modern language, and it is a literary standard based loosely on Vedic Sanskrit but with the grammar and lexicon and some sound changes of later (early-to-mid first millennium BC) northwestern Prakrit dialects. On the other hand, Vedic Sanskrit has been argued as representing the same stage that is ancestral to all or most of the Prakrits. Some take this a step further and assume that Vedic Sanskrit is synonymous with Proto-Indo-Aryan, but several differences between the reconstructed PIA phonology and that of Vedic Sanskrit cast serious doubt on this idea. In fact, the Wikipedia article already has a section on some of those discrepancies. — 69.120.64.15 (talk) 20:03, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lineage Chart 

message: The article is about the protolanguage, not the language family itself. Do we really need a section with detailed information on the Indo-European branches and other proposed subgroups? I think such information is obviously out of place here and should be left for the article Indo-European languages; I suggest removing the table in that section but perhaps moving it over to Indo-European languages § Classification if it's considered valuable. Plus, there is already an entire page solely for listing the Indo-European languages. So the information is largely redundant, and removing the table entirely wouldn't be any great loss. — 69.120.64.15 (talk) 19:46, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this and that's the pattern I'm following over on Gaelwiki Samalou (talk) 20:47, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree --Pfold (talk) 15:15, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Proto-Indo-European language#Branches|Branches]] 

message: Are the asterisks in the phoneme inventories really necessary? It's explained that these are unattested and must be used in writing of PIE words but I don't see why they need to be included in the charts. These charts seem to be mixing PIE phonemes and PIE spelling conventions in an unhelpful manner. – Dyolf87 (talk) 10:51, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The mixing was just in the vowels, and in the misleading introductory sentences. It's now strictly per PIE spelling conventions. So asterisks are fine. Btw, this section is a just summary of Proto-Indo-European_phonology. So the main point is actually whether it faithfully reflects what is written there, and whether it is a good summary. –Austronesier (talk) 11:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

text: PS to all: how is Fortson a source for a minimal vowel system? –Austronesier (talk) 11:06, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are asterisks really necessary? 

message: In the consonant inventory there is a  where we would usually expect to see  for the [j] sound. Is there a reason for this? – Dyolf87 (talk) 07:34, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: This an old and common convention in IE historical linguistics, and also in the transliteration of ancient languages such as Hittite, Sanskrit, Avestan, Tocharian etc. Another common alternative notation is *i̯ (together with *u̯ for *w); the IPA symbol *j, however, is rarely used in the relevant literature, so introducing it here would create an insular notation. –Austronesier (talk) 14:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I guessed it would be something like that. Would it not be useful though, to note somewhere on or near the consonant chart that y is used for [j] in PIE? At least that way it would be less confusing for people who are starting out in their linguistic careers or hobbies? Just a thought. – Dyolf87 (talk) 15:47, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that would be a good idea. AJD (talk) 17:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

text: Anyone know why  is traditional?  Is it because British scholars used  in Sanskrit (thought by many to be closest to PIE of the known languages)? —Tamfang (talk) 05:43, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why y and not j in the consonant inventory? 

message: Paging User:Pfold specifically, but I feel that the line "Its proposed features have been derived by linguistic reconstruction from documented Indo-European languages. No direct record of Proto-Indo-European exists." can be confusing. Before my edit to this section, an IP user changed the last part to "No direct record of Proto-Indo-European has been found.", before ThethPunjabi reverted it. I think from its current wording, it can be easy to assume that both of the sentences are unrelated, when the most certainly are. The reason why Proto-Indo-European is reconstructed is because there is no written evidence for it, and only reflexes of it throughout its daughter languages. This may seem like a simple line of reasoning, but I think it isn't clear with the current wording, as shown with the IP editor's confusion. The pre-literacy of the Proto-Indo-Europeans seems to be pretty well established, and I think that the clarification of Proto-Indo-European being an attempt at reconstructing a pre-historic language could help. I attempted to link these concepts together a bit more closely, but understand that my implementation might of not been the best. I would love to hear other editor's thoughts on this part of the opener. JungleEntity (talk) 23:48, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I've swapped the order of those sentences and put a semicolon between them; let's see if that helps. AJD (talk) 14:39, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I think your edit works best - thank you. JungleEntity (talk) 21:41, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion in opening paragraph 

message: "Era	c. 4500 – c. 2500 BC"
Which source gives that the common ancestor of the Anatolian branch and other branches still existed in 2500 BC ? --95.24.71.165 (talk) 18:51, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't know what sources the article uses, but The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World says: . The terminus ante quem of 2500bc is obviously quite late, based on the earliest attestations of Anatolian languages.  Tewdar  19:54, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Age 

message: Shouldnt the homeland of indo-European be ukraine since Sredny stog culture was the oldest indo-European culture and they origanated firmly in ukraine? H20346 (talk) 05:59, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The hypothesized historical homeland for the Proto-Indo-Europeans transcends today's national borders, mostly being parts of eastern Ukraine, southern Russia, and the north Caucasus.  At present there is no definitive answer to what culture spoke Proto-Indo-European. JungleEntity (talk) 17:05, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homeland