17. Indo-European family of languages.
Many language families are divided into branches, which are often referred to as small families or groups. A linguistic branch is a smaller subdivision of languages than a family. The languages of one branch retain fairly close family ties and have many similarities.
Among the languages of the Indo-European family of the family, there are branches that unite the languages of Slavic, Baltic, Germanic, Romance, Greek (Greek group), Celtic, Illyrian, Indian (otherwise - Indo-Aryan), Indo-Iranian (Aryan), Tocharian, etc. In addition, in Indo-European language the family has "single" languages (ie, not forming special branches): Albanian, Armenian, Venetian, Thracian and Phrygian.
The term Indo-European languages ( English Indo- European languages) was first introduced by an English scientist Thomas Young v 1813 year.
Indo-European family languages originate from a singleProto-Indo-European language , whose carriers probably lived about 5-6 thousand years ago... It is one of the largest families of languages in Eurasia, spread over the past five centuries in the Americas, Australia and partly in Africa. There are several hypotheses about the place of origin of the Proto-Indo-European language (in particular, regions such as Eastern Europe, Forward Asia, steppe territories at the junction Europe and Asia). With a high probability, the archaeological culture of the ancient Indo-Europeans (or one of their branches) can be considered the so-called "Yamnaya culture", carriers of which in the III millennium BC. NS. lived in the east of modern Ukraine and the south of Russia.
For the ancient state of the language-source of the Indo-European language (it would be imprudent to refer the following picture to the Indo-European proto-language), apparently, the following features were characteristic: in phonetics- the presence of "e" and "o" as options for a single morphonemes(it follows that for an earlier period vowels could not be phonemes), the special role of "a" in the system, the presence laryngeal, related to the formation of the opposition longitude - brevity (or the corresponding intonation or even tone differences); the presence of three rows of stop, usually interpreted as voiced, voiceless, aspirated (for an earlier period, the interpretation, perhaps, should be different, in particular, it should take into account the opposition in tension - non-tension), three rows of posterior lingual, previously reduced to simpler relations; tendency towards palatalization certain consonants in one group of Indo-European language and to labializations them in another; possible positional (in a word) motivation for the appearance of certain classes of stop (i.e., rules distribution, subsequently often invalid); v morphology- heteroclytic declination, combining in one paradigm different types of declension, the likely presence ergative("Active") case, recognized by many researchers, is relatively simple case system with the further development of indirect cases from previously non-paradigmatic formations (for example, from the syntactic combination of a name with postposition, particle etc.); the known closeness of the nominative for -s and the genitive with the same element, suggesting a single source of these forms; the presence of an "indefinite" case (casus indefinitus); juxtaposition animate and inanimate classes that subsequently gave rise to a three-clan (through a two-clan) system; the presence of two series verbal forms (conditionally on -mi and on -Hi / oH), which determined the development of a number of other categories - thematic and athematic conjugations, media passive and perfect forms, transitivity / intransitivity, activity / inactivity; two series of personal endings of the verb, with the help of which, in particular, differentiated real and past time, forms of moods, etc .; stems on -s, from which one of the classes of presentational stems arose, the sigmatic aorist, a number of mood forms and derivative conjugation; v syntax- structure suggestions with an indication of the interdependence and place of its members, determined by the so-called Wackernagel's law (see. Wackernagel's law); the role of particles and preverbs; the presence of a full-valued status in words that later turned into service elements; some syntactic features of the original analyticism (with separate elements of the "isolating" order), etc.
Just as during more than a century and a half of the development of Indo-European linguistics, the understanding of the composition of I. i. usually changed towards an increase in languages (for example, the original core - Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, Germanic - expanded at the expense of the Celtic, Baltic, Slavic, later Albanian and Armenian, already in the 20th century - at the expense of the Hittite-Luwian and Tocharian, etc. etc.; however, opposite cases are also known - exclusion from the Indo-European languages Georgian or Kawi), it is not quite stable even now: on the one hand, there are some languages that are intensively checked for their possible belonging to Indo-European languages (like Etruscan or some other, not yet decrypted languages), on the other hand, the Indo-European languages themselves in a number constructions are derived from an isolated state (for example, P. Kretschmer considered I. Ya. related to the so-called Reto-Tyrrhenian and raised them to a single proto-Indo-European source). The theory of a deeper kinship of Indo-European languages was proposed by V.M. nostratic, which includes at least such large language families of the Old World as Afrasian, Ural, Altai, Dravidian and Kartvelian. The acquisition of the Indo-European language of its own linguistic "superfamily" allows us to outline new important perspectives in the study of their development.
The following groups of languages belong to the Indo-European language family:
1. Slavic(main): eastern - Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian; Western - Polish, Czech, Slovak; southern - Bulgarian, Macedonian, Serbo-Croatian, Slovenian, Old Church Slavonic.
2. Baltic: Lithuanian, Latvian, Old Prussian (deceased).
3. Germanic: English, German, Dutch, Afrikaans (in South Africa), Yiddish, Swedish, Norwegian, Danish, Icelandic, Gothic (deceased), etc.
4. Celtic: Irish, Welsh, Breton, etc.
5. Romanesque: Spanish, Portuguese, French, Italian, Romanian and other languages, formed on the basis of the Latin language.
6. Albanian.
7. Greek: Ancient Greek and Modern Greek.
8. Iranian: Afghan (Pashto), Tajik, Ossetian, Kurdish, Avestan (deceased), etc.
9. Indian: Hindi, Urdu, Gypsy, Nepali, Sanskrit (deceased) and other historically non-indigenous languages of India that appeared in it after the arrival of the Indo-Europeans.
10. Armenian.
11. Anatolian(deceased): Hittite, Luwian, etc.
12. Tokharian(deceased): Turfan, Kuchansk, etc.
The Indo-European branch of languages is one of the largest in Eurasia. It has spread over the past 5 centuries in South and North America, Australia and partly in Africa. Indo-European languages before occupied the territory from East Turkestan in the east to Ireland in the west, from India in the south to Scandinavia in the north. This family includes about 140 languages. In total, they are spoken by approximately 2 billion people (2007 estimate). takes the leading place among them in terms of the number of carriers.
The importance of Indo-European languages in comparative historical linguistics
In the development of comparative historical linguistics, an important role belongs to the study of Indo-European languages. The fact is that their family was one of the first to be identified by scientists with a great temporal depth. As a rule, in science, other families were determined, focusing directly or indirectly on the experience gained in the study of Indo-European languages.
Ways to compare languages
Languages can be compared in a variety of ways. Typology is one of the most common of them. This is the study of the types of linguistic phenomena, as well as the discovery, on the basis of this, of universal laws that exist at different levels. However, this method is not genetically applicable. In other words, it cannot be used to study languages in the aspect of their origin. The main role for comparative studies should be played by the concept of kinship, as well as the method of establishing it.
Genetic classification of Indo-European languages
It is analogous to biological, on the basis of which various groups of species are distinguished. Thanks to her, we can systematize many languages, of which there are about six thousand. Having identified the patterns, we can reduce all this set to a relatively small number of language families. The results obtained as a result of genetic classification are invaluable not only for linguistics, but also for a number of other related disciplines. They are especially important for ethnography, since the emergence and development of various languages is closely related to ethnogenesis (the emergence and development of ethnic groups).
Indo-European languages suggest that the differences between them increase over time. This can be expressed in such a way that the distance between them increases, which is measured as the length of the branches or arrows of the tree.
Branches of the Indo-European family
The family tree of Indo-European languages has many branches. It distinguishes both large groups and those consisting of only one language. Let's list them. These are Modern Greek, Indo-Iranian, Italic (including Latin), Romance, Celtic, Germanic, Slavic, Baltic, Albanian, Armenian, Anatolian (Hittite-Luwian) and Tocharian. In addition, it includes a number of extinct ones, which are known to us from scant sources, mainly from a few glosses, inscriptions, toponyms and anthroponyms from Byzantine and Greek authors. These are Thracian, Phrygian, Messapian, Illyrian, ancient Macedonian, Venetian languages. They cannot be attributed with complete certainty to a particular group (branch). Perhaps they should be separated into independent groups (branches), making up the genealogical tree of Indo-European languages. Scientists disagree on this issue.
Of course, there were, in addition to those listed above, and other Indo-European languages. Their fate was different. Some of them died out without a trace, others left behind a few traces in the substrate vocabulary and toponomastics. Attempts have been made to reconstruct some Indo-European languages from these scanty traces. The most famous reconstruction of this kind is the Cimmerian language. He supposedly left traces in the Baltic and Slavic. Also noteworthy is Pelagic, which was spoken by the pre-Greek population of Ancient Greece.
Pidgin
In the course of the expansion of various languages of the Indo-European group, which took place over the past centuries, dozens of new ones - pidgin - were formed on the Roman and Germanic basis. They are characterized by a radically abbreviated vocabulary (1,500 words or less) and simplified grammar. Subsequently, some of them were creolized, while others became full-fledged both in functional and grammatical terms. These are Bislama, Tok Pisin, Cryo in Sierra Leone, and The Gambia; Seshelwa in the Seychelles; Mauritian, Haitian and Reunion, etc.
As an example, let us give a brief description of the two languages of the Indo-European family. The first one is Tajik.
Tajik
It belongs to the Indo-European family, the Indo-Iranian branch and the Iranian group. It is state-owned in Tajikistan, and is widespread in Central Asia. Together with the Dari language, the literary idiom of Afghan Tajiks, it belongs to the eastern zone of the dialectal New Persian continuum. This language can be seen as a variant of Persian (northeastern). Mutual understanding is still possible between those who use the Tajik language and the Persian-speaking inhabitants of Iran.
Ossetian
It belongs to the Indo-European languages, the Indo-Iranian branch, the Iranian group and the eastern subgroup. The Ossetian language is widespread in South and North Ossetia. The total number of speakers is about 450-500 thousand people. It contains traces of ancient contacts with Slavic, Türksim and Finno-Ugric. The Ossetian language has 2 dialects: Ironian and Digorian.
The disintegration of the base language
No later than the fourth millennium BC. NS. the disintegration of the single Indo-European language-base took place. This event led to the emergence of many new ones. Figuratively speaking, the genealogical tree of Indo-European languages began to grow from the seed. There is no doubt that the Hittite-Luwian languages were the first to separate. The timing of the allocation of the Tocharian branch is the most controversial due to the paucity of data.
Attempts to merge different branches
Numerous branches belong to the Indo-European language family. Attempts have been made more than once to combine them with each other. For example, it was hypothesized that the Slavic and Baltic languages are especially close. The same was assumed in relation to the Celtic and Italic. Today, the most generally recognized is the unification of the Iranian and Indo-Aryan languages, as well as Nuristan and Dard into the Indo-Iranian branch. In some cases, it was even possible to restore the verbal formulas characteristic of the Indo-Iranian proto-language.
As you know, the Slavs belong to the Indo-European language family. However, it is still not clear whether their languages should be split into a separate branch. The same applies to the Baltic peoples. The Balto-Slavic unity causes a lot of controversy in such an association as the Indo-European language family. Its peoples cannot be unequivocally attributed to one branch or another.
As for other hypotheses, they are completely rejected in modern science. Different features can form the basis for the division of such a large association as the Indo-European language family. The peoples who are the bearers of one or another of its languages are numerous. Therefore, it is not so easy to classify them. Various attempts have been made to create a coherent system. For example, according to the results of the development of rear-lingual Indo-European consonants, all languages of this group were divided into centum and satem. These associations are named after the reflection of the word "one hundred". In satem languages, the initial sound of this Proto-Indo-European word is reflected in the form "w", "s", etc. As for the centum languages, it is characterized by "x", "k", etc.
The first comparativists
The emergence of comparative historical linguistics proper is attributed to the early 19th century and is associated with the name of Franz Bopp. In his work, he was the first to prove scientifically the kinship of Indo-European languages.
The first comparativists by nationality were Germans. These are F. Bopp, J. Zeiss, and others. They noticed for the first time that Sanskrit (an ancient Indian language) bears great similarity to German. They proved that some Iranian, Indian and European languages have a common origin. Then these scholars united them into the "Indo-German" family. After some time, it was established that Slavic and Baltic languages are also of exceptional importance for the reconstruction of the proto-language. This is how a new term appeared - "Indo-European languages".
Merit of August Schleicher
August Schleicher (his photo is presented above) in the middle of the 19th century summarized the achievements of the predecessors-comparativists. He described in detail each subgroup of the Indo-European family, in particular, its most ancient state. The scientist suggested using the principles of reconstruction of a common proto-language. He had no doubts about the correctness of his own reconstruction. Schleicher even wrote a text in Proto-Indo-European, which he recreated. This is the "Sheep and Horses" fable.
Comparative-historical linguistics was formed as a result of the study of various related languages, as well as the processing of methods for proving their relationship and reconstruction of a certain initial proto-linguistic state. August Schleicher is credited with depicting schematically the process of their development in the form of a family tree. In this case, the Indo-European group of languages appears in the following form: trunk - and groups of related languages are branches. The family tree has become a visual representation of a distant and close relationship. In addition, it indicated that closely related ones had a common proto-language (Balto-Slavic - among the ancestors of the Balts and Slavs, German-Slavic - among the ancestors of the Balts, Slavs and Germans, etc.).
A modern study by Quentin Atkinson
More recently, an international group of biologists and linguists established that the Indo-European group of languages originated from Anatolia (Turkey).
It is she, from their point of view, that is the birthplace of this group. The research was led by Quentin Atkinson, a biologist at the University of Auckland, New Zealand. Scientists have applied methods to analyze various Indo-European languages that have been used to study the evolution of species. They analyzed the vocabulary of 103 languages. In addition, they studied data on their historical development and geographical distribution. Based on this, the researchers made the following conclusion.
Consideration of cognates
How did these scholars study the language groups of the Indo-European family? They were looking at cognates. They are cognate words that have similar sounds and common origins in two or more languages. They are usually words that are less subject to changes in the process of evolution (denoting family relationships, names of body parts, and also pronouns). Scientists have compared the number of cognates in different languages. Based on this, they determined the degree of their relationship. Thus, cognates were likened to genes, and mutations - differences in cognates.
Use of historical information and geographic data
Then scientists resorted to historical data about the time when the divergence of languages supposedly took place. For example, it is believed that in 270 AD, the languages of the Romance group began to be separated from Latin. It was at this time that the emperor Aurelian decided to withdraw the Roman colonists from the province of Dacia. In addition, the researchers used data on the modern geographic distribution of various languages.
Research results
After combining the information received, an evolutionary tree was created based on the following two hypotheses: Kurgan and Anatolian. The researchers compared the resulting two trees and found that "Anatolian" statistically was the most likely.
The reaction of colleagues to the results obtained by Atkinson's group was very ambiguous. Many scientists have noted that comparison with linguistic biological evolution is unacceptable, since they have different mechanisms. However, other scientists have found it entirely justified to use such methods. However, the group was criticized for not testing the third hypothesis, the Balkan one.
Note that today the main hypotheses of the origin of the Indo-European languages are Anatolian and Kurgan. According to the first, the most popular among historians and linguists, their ancestral home is the Black Sea steppes. Other hypotheses, Anatolian and Balkan, suggest that Indo-European languages spread from Anatolia (in the first case) or from the Balkan Peninsula (in the second).
It was found that the centers of distribution of Indo-European dialects were located in the strip from Central Europe and the northern Balkans to the northern Black Sea region.
Indo-European languages (or Ario-European, or Indo-Germanic), one of the largest linguistic families in Eurasia. Common features of Indo-European languages, opposing them to the languages of other families, are reduced to the presence of a certain number of regular correspondences between formal elements of different levels associated with the same units of content (while borrowings are excluded).
A concrete interpretation of the facts of similarity of Indo-European languages may consist in postulating a certain common source of known Indo-European languages (Indo-European proto-language, base language, diversity of the most ancient Indo-European dialects) or in accepting the situation of a linguistic union, which resulted in the development of a number of common features in originally different languages.
The Indo-European family of languages includes:
Hittite-Luwian (Anatolian) group - from the 18th century. BC.;
Indian (Indo-Aryan, including Sanskrit) group - from 2 thousand BC;
Iranian (Avestan, Old Persian, Bactrian) group - from the beginning of the 2nd millennium BC;
Armenian language - from the 5th century. AD;
Phrygian language - from the 6th century. BC.;
The Greek group - from the 15th - 11th centuries. BC.;
Thracian language - from the beginning of the 2nd millennium BC;
Albanian language - from the 15th century. AD;
Illyrian language - from the 6th century. AD;
Venetian language - from 5 BC;
The Italic group - from the 6th century. BC.;
Romance (from Latin) languages - from the 3rd century. BC.;
Celtic group - from the 4th century. AD;
German group - from the 3rd c. AD;
Baltic group - from the middle of the 1st millennium AD;
Slavic group - (Proto-Slavic from the 2nd millennium BC);
Tokhar group - from the 6th century. AD
On the misuse of the term "Indo-European" languages
Analyzing the term "Indo-European" (languages), we come to the conclusion that the first part of the term means that the language belongs to the ethnos called "Indians", and with them the coinciding geographical concept - India. Regarding the second part of the term "Indo-European", it is obvious that "-European" denotes only the geographical distribution of the language, and not its ethnicity.
If the term "Indo-European" (languages) has as its purpose to designate a simple geography of the spread of these languages, then it is at least incomplete, since, showing the spread of the language from east to west, does not reflect its spread from north to south. And also misleading about the modern spread of "Indo-European" languages, much broader than indicated in the name.
Obviously, the name of this language family should be generated in such a way that it reflects the ethnic composition of the first native speakers, as is done in other families.
It was found that the centers of distribution of Indo-European dialects were located in the strip from Central Europe and the northern Balkans to the northern Black Sea region. Therefore, it should be especially noted that the circumstance as a result of which the Indian languages joined the Indo-European family of languages - only as a result of the conquests of India made by the Aryans and the assimilation of its indigenous population. And from this it follows that the contribution of the Indians directly to the formation of the Indo-European language is negligible and, moreover, harmful from the point of view of the purity of the "Indo-European" language, since the Dravidian languages of the indigenous inhabitants of India had their low-level linguistic influence. Thus, a language named with the use of their ethnic designation leads away from the nature of its origin by its own name. Therefore, the Indo-European family of languages in terms of the term “Indo-” should be more correctly called at least “Ario”, as indicated, for example, in the source.
Regarding the second part of this term, there is, for example, another, indicating ethnicity, reading - "-German". However, the Germanic languages - English, Dutch, High German, Low German, Frisian, Danish, Icelandic, Norwegian and Swedish - although they represent a special branch of the Indo-European group of languages, differ from other Indo-European languages in peculiar features. Especially in the field of consonants (the so-called "first" and "second movement of consonants") and in the field of morphology (the so-called "weak conjugation of verbs"). These features are usually explained by the mixed (hybrid) nature of the Germanic languages, layered on a clearly non-Indo-European foreign language basis, in the definition of which the opinions of scholars differ. Obviously, the Indo-Europeanization of the "Pro-Germanic" languages proceeded in a similar way, as in India, by the Aryan tribes. Slavic-Germanic contacts began only in the 1st - 2nd centuries. AD , therefore, the influence of Germanic dialects on the Slavic language in antiquity could not take place, and later it was extremely small. The Germanic languages, on the other hand, were so strongly influenced by the Slavic languages that they themselves, being originally non-Indo-European, became a full-fledged part of the Indo-European language family.
Hence, we come to the conclusion that instead of the second part of the term "Indo-European" (languages), it is wrong to use the term "-Germanic", since the Germans are not the historical generators of the Indo-European language.
Thus, the largest and most ancient branch of languages is named after two non-Indo-European peoples formatted by the Aryans - the Indians and the Germans, who were never the creators of the so-called "Indo-European" language.
On the Proto-Slavic language as a possible progenitor of the "Indo-European" language families
Of the seventeen representatives of the Indo-European family indicated above, by the time of their foundation, the following languages cannot be the progenitors of the Indo-European language: Armenian (from the 5th century AD), Phrygian language (from the 6th century BC), Albanian ( from the 15th century AD), the Venetian language (from 5 BC), the Italic group (from the 6th century BC), Romance (from Latin) languages (from the 3rd century BC). BC), the Celtic group (from the 4th century A.D.), the Germanic group (from the 3rd century A.D.), the Baltic group (from the middle of the 1st millennium A.D.), the Tocharian group (from the 6th century A.D.) AD), the Illyrian language (from the 6th century AD).
The most ancient representatives of the Indo-European family are: the Hittite-Luwian (Anatolian) group (from the 18th century BC), the "Indian" (Indo-Aryan) group (from the 2nd millennium BC), the Iranian group (from the beginning 2nd millennium BC), the Greek group (from the 15th - 11th centuries BC), the Thracian language (from the beginning of the 2nd millennium BC).
It is worth noting the existence of two mutually opposite objective processes in the development of language. The first is the differentiation of languages, a process that characterizes the development of related languages towards their material and structural divergence through the gradual loss of elements of general quality and the acquisition of specific features. For example, Russian, Belarusian, and Ukrainian languages arose through differentiation based on Old Russian. This process reflects the stage of the initial settlement over considerable distances of the people, who were previously united. For example, the descendants of the Anglo-Saxons who moved to the New World developed their own version of the English language - American. Differentiation is a consequence of the difficulty of communicative contacts. The second process is the integration of languages, a process in which previously differentiated languages, collectives that previously used different languages (dialects), begin to use the same language, i.e. merge into one language collective. The process of language integration is usually associated with the political, economic and cultural integration of the respective peoples and presupposes ethnic mixing. The integration of languages is especially common between closely related languages and dialects.
Separately, we will put the subject of our research - the Slavic group - since in the classification given in the classification it is dated to the 8th - 9th centuries. AD And this is not true, because in unanimous agreement, linguists say that "the origins of the Russian language go back to ancient times." At the same time, understanding by the term “deep antiquity” clearly not a hundred or two years, but much longer periods of history, the authors indicate the main stages in the evolution of the Russian language.
From the 7th to the 14th century there was an Old Russian (East Slavic, identified by the source) language.
"Its characteristic features: full accord (" crow "," malt "," birch "," iron "); pronunciation "f", "h" in place of the Proto-Slavic * dj, * tj, * kt ("go", "microwave", "night"); change of nasal vowels * o, * e in "y", "i"; the ending "-ty" in the 3rd person plural verbs of the present and future tense; the ending "-" in names with a soft stem ending in "-а" in the genitive singular ("earth"); many words not attested in other Slavic languages ("bush", "rainbow", "milk mushroom", "cat", "cheap", "boot", etc.); and a number of other Russian features ”.
Certain linguistic classifications create particular difficulties for understanding the consubstantiality of the Slavic language. So, the classification, carried out according to phonetic characteristics, the Slavic language is split into three groups. In contrast, the morphology data of the Slavic languages represent the unity of the Slavic language. All Slavic languages have retained the declension forms, with the exception of the Bulgarian language (apparently, due to its least development among the Slavic languages, chosen by the Judeo-Christians as Church Slavonic), which has only the declension of pronouns. The number of cases for all Slavic languages is the same. All Slavic languages are closely related lexically. A huge percentage of words are found in all Slavic languages.
The historical and comparative study of the Slavic languages determines the processes that were experienced by the East Slavic languages in the most ancient (pre-feudal) era and which distinguish this group of languages in the circle of those closely associated with it (Slavic). It should be noted that the recognition of the commonality of linguistic processes in the East Slavic languages of the pre-feudal era should be considered as the sum of slightly varying dialects. Obviously, dialects arise historically with the expansion of territories occupied by representatives of one language, and now a dialectical language.
In support of this, the source indicates that the Russian language until the 12th century was the general Russian language (the source called "Old Russian"), which the
“Initially, throughout its entire length, it experienced general phenomena; phonetically, it differed from other Slavic languages by its full agreement and the transition of common Slavic tj and dj to h and z. " And further, the general Russian language only “from the XII century. finally divided into three main dialects, each having its own special history: northern (northern Great Russian), middle (later Belarusian and southern Great Russian) and southern (Little Russian) "[see. also 1].
In turn, the Great Russian dialect can be divided into northern sub-dialects, or okay, and southern, or akaye, and these latter - into different dialects. Here it is pertinent to ask the question: are all three dialects of the Russian language equally remote from each other and from their ancestor - the common Russian language, or is one of the dialects a direct heir, and the rest are some offshoots? The answer to this question was given in due time by the Slavic studies of tsarist Russia, which denied independence for the Ukrainian and Belarusian languages and declared them to be the dialects of the common Russian language.
1st to 7th centuries the common Russian language was called Proto-Slavic and meant the late stage of the Proto-Slavic language.
From the middle of the 2nd millennium, the eastern representatives of the Indo-European family, whom the autochthonous Indian tribes called the Aryans (cf. ved. Aryaman-, ave. Airyaman- (aryan + man), pers. Erman - “guest”, etc.), separated from the Proto-Slavic space, as indicated above, located on the territory of modern Russia, in the strip from Central Europe and the northern Balkans to the northern Black Sea region. The Aryans began to penetrate into the northwestern regions of India, forming the so-called Old Indian (Vedic and Sanskrit) language.
In the 2nd - 1st millennium BC the Proto-Slavic language stood out "from the group of related dialects of the Indo-European family of languages." From the definition of the concept of "dialect" - a type of language that has retained its main features, but also has differences - we see that Proto-Slavic is, in essence, the "Indo-European" language itself.
“The Slavic languages, being a closely related group, belong to the family of Indo-European languages (among which they are closest to the Baltic languages). The proximity of the Slavic languages is found in the vocabulary, the common origin of many words, roots, morphemes, in syntax and semantics, the system of regular sound correspondences, etc. Differences - material and typological - are due to the millennial development of these languages in different conditions. After the collapse of the Indo-European linguistic unity, the Slavs for a long time represented an ethnic whole with one tribal language, called Proto-Slavic - the ancestor of all Slavic languages. Its history was longer than the history of individual Slavic languages: for several millennia, the Proto-Slavic language was the single language of the Slavs. Dialectal varieties begin to appear only in the last millennium of its existence (the end of the 1st millennium BC and the 1st millennium AD). "
The Slavs entered into relations with various Indo-European tribes: with the ancient Balts, mainly with the Prussians and Yatvingians (long-term contact). Slavic-Germanic contacts began in the 1-2 centuries. n. NS. and were quite intense. The contact with the Iranians was weaker than with the Balts and the Prussians. Of the non-Indo-European, there were especially significant connections with the Finno-Ugric and Turkic languages. All these contacts are reflected to varying degrees in the vocabulary of the Proto-Slavic language.
The speakers of the languages of the Indo-European family (1860 million people), originating from a group of closely related dialects, in the 3rd millennium BC. began to spread in Western Asia south of the Northern Black Sea region and the Caspian region. Considering the unity of the Proto-Slavic language for several millennia, counting from the end of the 1st millennium BC. and giving the concept “several” the meaning “two” (at least), we get similar figures when determining the time period and come to the conclusion that in the 3rd millennium BC. (by the 1st millennium BC) the Proto-Slavic language was the only language of the Indo-Europeans.
Due to insufficient antiquity, none of the so-called "most ancient" representatives of the Indo-European family fell into our time interval: neither the Hittite-Luwian (Anatolian) group (from the 18th century BC), nor the "Indian" (Indo-Aryan) group (from the 2nd millennium BC), neither the Iranian group (from the beginning of the 2nd millennium BC), nor the Greek group (from the 15th - 11th centuries BC), nor the Thracian language (from the beginning of the 2nd millennium BC).
However, the source further indicates that “according to the fate of the Indo-European middle palatine k’ and g ’, the Proto-Slavic language is included in the satom group (Indian, Iranian, Baltic and other languages). The Proto-Slavic language experienced two significant processes: palatalization of consonants before j and the loss of closed syllables. These processes transformed the phonetic structure of the language, left a deep imprint on the phonological system, caused the emergence of new alternations, radically transformed the inflections. They took place in the period of dialectal fragmentation, therefore they are not equally reflected in the Slavic languages. The loss of closed syllables (the last centuries BC and the 1st millennium AD) gave a deep originality to the late Slavic language, significantly transforming its ancient Indo-European structure ”.
In this quote, the Proto-Slavic language is put on a par with the languages within the same group, which includes Indian, Iranian and Baltic languages. However, the Baltic language is much later (from the middle of the 1st millennium AD), and at the same time it is still spoken by a completely insignificant part of the population - about 200 thousand. And the Indian language is not actually the Indian language of the autochthonous population of India, since it was brought to India by the Aryans in the 2nd millennium BC. from the northwest, and this is not from Iran at all. This is from the side of modern Russia. If the Aryans were not Slavs living in the territory of modern Russia, then a legitimate question arises: who were they?
Knowing that the change in the language, its isolation in the form of an adverb is directly related to the isolation of the speakers of different dialects, one could conclude that the Proto-Slavs separated from the Iranians or the Iranians separated from the Proto-Slavs in the middle-end of the 1st millennium BC. However, “significant deviations from the Indo-European type already in the Proto-Slavic period were represented by morphology (mainly in the verb, to a lesser extent in the name). Most of the suffixes were formed on the Proto-Slavic soil. Many nominal suffixes arose as a result of the fusion of the final sounds of the stems (the theme of the stems) with the Indo-European suffixes -k-, -t-, etc. So, for example, the suffixes - ok, - uk, - ik, - ъkъ, - ukъ, - ъkъ , - ak and others. Having preserved the lexical Indo-European fund, the Proto-Slavic language at the same time lost many Indo-European words (for example, many names of domestic and wild animals, many social terms). The ancient words were also lost in connection with various prohibitions (taboos), for example, the Indo-European name for the bear was replaced by the taboo medved - "honey eater". "
The main means of forming syllables, words or sentences in Indo-European languages is stress (Latin Ictus = shock, stress), a grammatical term that means different shades of strength and musical pitch observed in speech. Only it combines individual sounds into syllables, syllables into words, words into sentences. The Indo-European proto-language had a free stress that could stand on different parts of the word, which also passed into some individual Indo-European languages (Sanskrit, ancient Iranian languages, Baltic-Slavic, Pragerman). Subsequently, many languages have lost much of the freedom of stress. So, the ancient Italian languages and Greek underwent a restriction of the primary freedom of stress by means of the so-called "law of three syllables", according to which the stress could also be on the 3rd syllable from the end, if only the second syllable from the end was not long; in this latter case, the stress should have been shifted to the long syllable. Of the Lithuanian languages, Latvian assigned the stress to the initial syllable of words, which was done by some Germanic languages, and from Slavic - Czech and Lusatian; from other Slavic languages, Polish received an emphasis on the second syllable from the end, and from Romance languages, French replaced the comparative variety of Latin stress (already constrained by the law of three syllables) with a fixed stress on the final syllable of the word. Of the Slavic languages, they retained their free stress Russian, Bulgarian, Serbian, Slovin, Polabian and Kashubian, and from the Baltic - Lithuanian and Old Prussian. The Lithuanian-Slavic languages still have many features characteristic of the stress of the Indo-European proto-language.
Of the peculiarities of the dialectal division of the Indo-European linguistic region, one can note a special closeness, respectively, of the Indian and Iranian, Baltic and Slavic languages, partly Italic and Celtic, which gives the necessary indications of the chronological framework of the evolution of the Indo-European family. Indo-Iranian, Greek, Armenian show a significant number of common isoglosses. At the same time, the Balto-Slavic have many similarities with the Indo-Iranian. Italic and Celtic languages are in many ways similar to Germanic, Venetian and Illyrian. Hittite-Luwian reveals significant parallels with Tocharian, etc. ...
For more information about the Proto-Slavic-Indo-European language, see the sources describing other languages. For example, the source writes about the Finno-Ugric languages: “the number of speakers of the Finno-Ugric languages is about 24 million people. (1970, estimate). Similar features of a systemic nature allow us to believe that the Uralic (Finno-Ugric and Samoyedic) languages are genetically related to Indo-European, Altai, Dravidian, Yukaghir and other languages and developed from the Nostratic proto-language. According to the most widespread point of view, the Prorathinian-Ugric separated from the Prosamodian about 6 thousand years ago and existed approximately until the end of the 3rd millennium BC. (when the division of the Finno-Permian and Ugric branches took place), being widespread in the Urals and the Western Urals (hypotheses about the Central Asian, Volgo-Oka and Baltic ancestral homelands of the Finno-Ugric peoples are refuted by modern data). Contacts with Indo-Iranians during this period ... "
Here it is necessary to interrupt the quotation, since, as we have shown above, the Aryans-Proto-Slavs were in contact with the Finno-Ugric peoples, who taught the Proto-Slavic language of the Indians only from the 2nd millennium BC, and the Iranians to the Urals did not walked and themselves got the "Indo-European" language also only from the 2nd millennium BC. “… Are reflected by a number of borrowings in the Finno-Ugric languages. In the 3rd - 2nd millennium BC. the resettlement of the Finno-Permians took place in the western direction (up to the Baltic Sea) ”.
conclusions
Based on the foregoing, it is possible to indicate such an origin and development of the Russian language - the language of the Russian nation, which belongs to the most widespread languages of the world, one of the official and working languages of the UN: Russian (from the 14th century) is a historical heritage and a continuation of Old Russian (1-14 centuries) language, which until the 12th century. was called common Slavic, and from the 1st to the 7th centuries. - Proto-Slavic. The Proto-Slavic language, in turn, is the last stage in the development of the Proto-Slavic (2nd - 1st millennium BC) language, in the 3rd millennium BC. incorrectly referred to as Indo-European.
When deciphering the etymological meaning of the Slavic word, it is incorrect to indicate any Sanskrit as a source of origin, since Sanskrit itself is formed from Slavic by contaminating it with Dravidian.
Literature:
1. Literary encyclopedia in 11 volumes, 1929-1939.
2. Great Soviet Encyclopedia, "Soviet Encyclopedia", in 30 volumes, 1969 - 1978.
3. Small Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Efron, “F.A. Brockhaus - I.A. Efron ", 1890-1907.
4. Miller V.F., Essays on Aryan mythology in connection with ancient culture, vol. 1, M., 1876.
5. Elizarenkova T.Ya., Mythology of the Rig Veda, in the book: Rig Veda, M., 1972.
6. Keith A. B., The religion and philosophy of the Veda and Upanishads, H. 1-2, Camb., 1925.
7. Ivanov V.V., Toporov V.N., Sanskrit, M., 1960.
8. Renou L., Histoire de la langue sanscrite, Lyon-P. 1956.
9. Mayrhofer M., Kurzgefasstes etymologisches Worterbuch des Altindischen, Bd 1-3, Hdlb., 1953-68.
10. Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Efron, “F.A. Brockhaus - I.A. Efron ", in 86 volumes, 1890 - 1907.
11. Sievers, Grundzuge der Phonetik, LPC, 4th ed., 1893.
12. Hirt, Der indogermanische Akzent, Strasbourg, 1895.
13. Ivanov V.V., Common Indo-European, Proto-Slavic and Anatolian language systems, M., 1965.
From the book. Tyunyaeva A.A., The history of the emergence of world civilization
www.organizmica. ru
The problem of reconstruction of occlusive
- At the dawn of Indo-European studies, relying mainly on Sanskrit data, scientists reconstructed a four-row system of occlusive consonants for the Proto-Indo-European language:
This scheme was followed by K. Brugman, A. Leskin, A. Meie, O. Semerenyi, G.A. Ilyinsky, F.F. Fortunatov.
- Later, when it became apparent that Sanskrit was not the equivalent of the proto-language, it was suspected that this reconstruction was unreliable. Indeed, there were quite a few examples that made it possible to reconstruct the series of voiceless aspirates. Some of them were of onomatopoietic origin. The rest of the cases, after F. de Saussure put forward the laryngal theory, brilliantly confirmed after the discovery of the Hittite language, were explained as reflexes of combinations of voiceless occlusive + laryngal.
Then the occlusive system was reinterpreted:
- But this reconstruction also had drawbacks. The first drawback was that the reconstruction of a series of voiced aspirates in the absence of a series of voiceless aspirates was typologically unreliable. The second drawback was that the Proto-Indo-European b there were only three rather unreliable examples. This reconstruction could not explain this fact.
A new stage was the promotion of T.V. Gamkrelidze and V.V. Ivanov of the glottal theory (and independently of them by P. Hopper in 1973). This scheme was based on the shortcomings of the previous one:
This theory made it possible to interpret the laws of Grassmann and Bartholomew in a different way, and also interpreted Grimm's law in a new way. However, this scheme seemed imperfect to many scientists. In particular, it assumes for the late Proto-Indo-European period the transition of glottalized consonants to voiced ones, while glottalized ones are rather muffled sounds.
- The last reinterpretation was made by V.V. Shevoroshkin, who suggested that in Proto-Indo-European there were not glottalized, but "strong" stops, which are found in some Caucasian languages. This type of stop can actually make voices.
The problem of the number of rows of guttural
If the reconstruction of the Proto-Indo-European language was based solely on the data of the Indo-Iranian, Baltic, Slavic, Armenian and Albanian languages, then it would be necessary to admit that there were two series of gutturals in Proto-Indo-European - simple and palatalized.
But if the reconstruction was based on the data of the Celtic, Italic, Germanic, Tocharian and Greek languages, then two other series would have to be adopted - guttural simple and labialized.
The languages of the first group (Satem) do not have labialized ones, and the languages of the second group (Centum) do not have palatalized ones. Accordingly, a compromise in this situation is to accept three series of gutturals (simple, palatalized and labialized) for the Proto-Indo-European language. However, such a concept runs up against a typological argument: there are no living languages in which such a system of gutturals exists.
There is a theory that assumes that the situation in the centum languages is primordial, and that the Satem languages palatalized the old simple guttural languages, while the old labialized ones changed into simple ones.
The opposite hypothesis asserts that in Proto-Indo-European there were simple guttural and palatalized. At the same time, in the centum languages, the simple ones became labialized, and the palatalized depalatalized ones.
And, finally, there are supporters of the theory according to which in Proto-Indo-European there was only one series of gutturals - simple ones.
Problems of Reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European Spirants
Traditionally it is believed that there was only one spirant in Proto-Indo-European s, the allophone of which in the position before the voiced consonants was z... Three times different linguists have attempted to increase the number of spirants in the reconstruction of the Proto-Indo-European language:
- The first attempt was made by Karl Brugman. See the article by Brugman's Spirants.
- The second was undertaken by E. Benveniste. He tried to ascribe to the Indo-European language the affricate c. The attempt was unsuccessful.
- T.V. Gamkrelidze and V.V. Ivanov, on the basis of a small number of examples, postulated for the Proto-Indo-European a number of spirants: s - s "- s w.
The problem of the number of laryngals
The laryngal theory in its original form was put forward by F. de Saussure in his work "An article on the original vowel system in Indo-European languages." F. de Saussure blamed for some alternations in the Sanskrit suffixes on a certain "sonanic coefficient" unknown to any living Indo-European language. After the discovery and decoding of the Hittite language, Jerzy Kurilovich identified the "sonanic coefficient" with the laryngal phoneme of the Hittite language, since in the Hittite language this laryngal was exactly where, according to Saussure, the "sonanic coefficient" was located. It was also found that the laryngals, being lost, actively influenced the quantity and quality of neighboring Proto-Indo-European vowels. However, at the moment there is no consensus among scientists about the number of laryngals in Proto-Indo-European. The calculations vary over a very wide range - from one to ten.
Traditional reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European phonetics
| Labial | Dental | Guttural | Laryngals | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| palatal | velar | labio-velar | |||||
| Nasal | m | n | |||||
| Smychny | p | t | ḱ | k | kʷ | ||
| voiced | b | d | ǵ | g | gʷ | ||
| voiced aspirated | bʰ | dʰ | ǵʰ | gʰ | gʷʰ | ||
| Fricative | s | h₁, h₂, h₃ | |||||
| Smooth | r, l | ||||||
| Semi-vowels | j | w | |||||
- Short vowels a, e, i, o, u
- Long vowels ā, ē, ō, ī, ū .
- Diphthongs ai, au, āi, āu, ei, eu, ēi, ēu, oi, ou, ōi, ōu
- Vowel allophones of the sonants: u, i, r̥, l̥, m̥, n̥.
Grammar
Structure of the language
Almost all modern and well-known ancient Indo-European languages are languages of the nominative system. However, many experts hypothesize that the Proto-Indo-European language at the early stages of its development was the language of an active system; later the names of the active class passed into the masculine and feminine gender, and the inactive - into the middle one. This, in particular, is evidenced by the complete coincidence of the forms of the nominative and accusative cases of the neuter gender. The division of nouns in Russian into animate and inanimate (with the coincidence of the nominative and accusative cases of inanimate names in many forms) is also, possibly, a distant reflex of the active structure. The remnants of the active system have been preserved to the greatest extent in the Aryan languages; in other Indo-European languages, the division into active and passive is rigid. Constructions resembling the active system in modern English (he sells a book - he sells a book, but a book sells at $ 20 - a book sells for $ 20) are secondary and not directly inherited from Proto-Indo-European.
Noun
Nouns in the Proto-Indo-European language had eight cases: nominative, accusative, genitive, dative, instrumental, separative, local, vocative; three grammatical numbers: singular, dual and plural. It was generally believed that there were three genders: male, female, and neuter. However, the discovery of the Hittite language, in which there are only two genders ("common" or "animate") and middle, raised doubts about this. Various hypotheses have been advanced as to when and how the feminine gender appeared in Indo-European languages.
Noun Endings Table:
| (Beekes 1995) | (Ramat 1998) | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Athematic | Thematic | ||||||||||||||
| Male and female | Average | Male and female | Average | Male | Average | ||||||||||
| One. | Multiple | Double. | One. | Multiple | Double. | One. | Multiple | Double. | One. | Multiple | One. | Multiple | Double. | One. | |
| Nominative | -s, 0 | -es | -h 1 (e) | -m, 0 | -h 2, 0 | -ih 1 | -s | -es | -h 1 e? | 0 | (coll.) - (e) h 2 | -os | -ōs | -oh 1 (u)? | -om |
| Accusative | -m | -ns | -ih 1 | -m, 0 | -h 2, 0 | -ih 1 | -m̥ | -m̥s | -h 1 e? | 0 | -om | -ons | -oh 1 (u)? | -om | |
| Genitive | - (o) s | -om | -h 1 e | - (o) s | -om | -h 1 e | -es, -os, -s | -ōm | -os (y) o | -ōm | |||||
| Dative | - (e) i | -mus | -me | - (e) i | -mus | -me | -ei | -ōi | |||||||
| Instrumental | - (e) h 1 | -bʰi | -bʰih 1 | - (e) h 1 | -bʰi | -bʰih 1 | -bʰi | -ō | -ōjs | ||||||
| Separating | - (o) s | -ios | -ios | - (o) s | -ios | -ios | |||||||||
| Local | -i, 0 | -su | -h 1 ou | -i, 0 | -su | -h 1 ou | -i, 0 | -su, -si | -oj | -ojsu, -ojsi | |||||
| Vocative | 0 | -es | -h 1 (e) | -m, 0 | -h 2, 0 | -ih 1 | -es | (coll.) - (e) h 2 | |||||||
Pronoun
Declension table of personal pronouns:
| Personal Pronouns (Beekes 1995) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| First person | Second person | |||
| Unities | Multiply | Unities | Multiply | |
| Nominative | h 1 eǵ (oH / Hom) | uei | tuH | iuH |
| Accusative | h 1 mé, h 1 me | nsmé, nōs | tué | usmé, wōs |
| Genitive | h 1 méne, h 1 moi | ns (er) o-, nos | teue, toi | ius (er) o-, wos |
| Dative | h 1 méǵʰio, h 1 moi | nsmei, ns | tébʰio, toi | usmei |
| Instrumental | h 1 moí | ? | toí | ? |
| Separating | h 1 med | nsmed | tued | usmed |
| Local | h 1 moí | nsmi | toí | usmi |
The pronouns of the 1st and 2nd persons did not differ in gender (this feature is preserved in all other Indo-European languages). The personal pronouns of the 3rd person were absent in the Proto-Indo-European language and instead of them various demonstrative pronouns were used.
Verb
Verb Endings Table:
| Buck 1933 | Beekes 1995 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Athematic | Thematic | Athematic | Thematic | ||
| Unities | 1st | -mi | -ō | -mi | -oH |
| 2nd | -si | -esi | -si | -eh₁i | |
| 3rd | -ti | -eti | -ti | -e | |
| Multiply | 1st | -mos / mes | -omos / omes | -mes | -omom |
| 2nd | -te | -ete | -th₁e | -eth₁e | |
| 3rd | -nti | -onti | -nti | -o | |
Numerals
Some cardinal numbers (masculine) are listed below:
| Sihler | Beekes | |
|---|---|---|
| one | * Hoi-no - / * Hoi-wo - / * Hoi-k (ʷ) o-; * sem- | * Hoi (H) nos |
| two | * d (u) wo- | * duoh₁ |
| three | * trei- / * tri- | * treies |
| four | * kʷetwor-
/ * kʷetur-
(see also en: kʷetwóres rule) |
* kʷetuōr |
| five | * penkʷe | * penkʷe |
| six | * s (w) eḱs ; initially perhaps * weḱs | * (s) uéks |
| seven | * septm̥ | * séptm |
| eight | * oḱtō , * oḱtou or * h₃eḱtō , * h₃eḱtou | * h₃eḱteh₃ |
| nine | * (h₁) newn̥ | * (h₁) néun |
| ten | * deḱm̥ (t) | * déḱmt |
| twenty | * wīḱm̥t- ; initially perhaps * widḱomt- | * duidḱmti |
| thirty | * trīḱomt- ; initially perhaps * tridḱomt- | * trih₂dḱomth₂ |
| Fourty | * kʷetwr̥̄ḱomt- ; initially perhaps * kʷetwr̥dḱomt- | * kʷeturdḱomth₂ |
| fifty | * penkʷēḱomt- ; initially perhaps * penkʷedḱomt- | * penkʷedḱomth₂ |
| sixty | * s (w) eḱsḱomt- ; initially perhaps * weḱsdḱomt- | * ueksdḱomth₂ |
| seventy | * septm̥̄ḱomt- ; initially perhaps * septm̥dḱomt- | * septmdḱomth₂ |
| eighty | * oḱtō (u) ḱomt- ; initially perhaps * h₃eḱto (u) dḱomt- | * h₃eḱth₃dḱomth₂ |
| ninety | * (h₁) newn̥̄ḱomt- ; initially perhaps * h₁newn̥dḱomt- | * h₁neundḱomth₂ |
| hundred | * ḱm̥tom ; initially perhaps * dḱm̥tom | * dḱmtóm |
| thousand | * ǵheslo- ; * tusdḱomti | * ǵʰes-l- |
Examples of texts
Attention! These examples are written in a form adapted for the standard Latin alphabet and reflect only one of the reconstruction options. Translations of texts are largely speculative, are not of interest to specialists and do not reflect the subtleties of pronunciation. They are placed here solely for demonstration and to get an initial understanding of the language.
Ovis ecvosque (Sheep and horse)
(Schleicher's Tale)
Gorei ovis, quesuo vlana ne est, ecvons especet, oinom ghe guerom voghom veghontum, oinomque megam bhorom, oinomque ghmenum ocu bherontum. Ovis nu ecvobhos eveghuet: "Cer aghnutoi moi, ecvons agontum manum, nerm videntei." Ecvos to evequont: “Cludhi, ovei, cer ghe aghnutoi nasmei videntibhos: ner, potis, oviom egh vulnem sebhi nevo ghuermom vestrom cvergneti; neghi oviom vulne esti ". Tod cecleus ovis agrom ebheguet.
- Approximate translation:
On the mountain, a sheep that had no wool saw horses: one was carrying a heavy cart, one was carrying a large load, one was quickly carrying a man. The sheep says to the horses: "My heart burns when I see horses carrying people, men." The horse replies: “Listen, sheep, our heart also burns when we see a man, a master making new warm clothes from sheep's wool; but the sheep is left without wool. " Hearing this, the sheep fled to the field.
Regs deivosque (King and God)
Version 1
Potis ghe est. Soque negenetos est. Sunumque evelt. So gheuterem precet: "Sunus moi gueniotam!" Gheuter nu potim veghuet: "Iecesuo ghi deivom Verunom." Upo pro potisque deivom sesore deivomque iecto. "Cludhi moi, deive Verune!" So nu cata divos guomt. "Quid velsi?" "Velnemi sunum." "Tod estu", vequet leucos deivos. Potenia ghi sunum gegone.
Version 2
To regs est. So nepotlus est. So regs sunum evelt. So tosuo gheuterem precet: "Sunus moi gueniotam!" So gheuter tom reguem eveghuet: "Iecesuo deivom Verunom." So regs deivom Verunom upo sesore nu deivom iecto. "Cludhi moi, pater Verune!" Deivos Verunos cata divos eguomt. "Quid velsi?" "Velmi sunum." "Tod estu", veghuet leucos deivos Verunos. Regos potenia sunum gegone.
- Approximate translation:
Once upon a time there was a king. But he was childless. And the king wanted a son. And he asked the priest: "I want my son to be born!" The priest to the king replies: "Turn to the god Varuna." And the king came to the god Varuna to turn to him with a request. "Listen to me, Father Varuna!" God Varuna descended from heaven. "What you want?" "I want a son." “So be it,” said the effulgent god Varuna. The king's wife gave birth to a son.
Pater naseros
Version 1
Pater naseros cemeni, nomen tovos estu cventos, reguom tevem guemoit ad nas, veltos tevem cvergeto cemeni ertique, edom naserom agheres do nasmebhos aghei tosmei le todque agosnes nasera, so lemos scelobhos naserobhos. Neque peretod nas, tou tratod nas apo peuces. Teve senti reguom, maghti decoromque bhegh antom. Estod.
Version 2
Pater naseros cemeni, nomen tovos estu iseros, reguom tevem guemoit ad nasmens, ghuelonom tevom cvergeto cemeni ed eri, edom naserom agheres do nasmebhos tosmei aghei ed le agosnes nasera, so lemos scelobhos naserobhos. Neque gvedhe nasmens bhi perendom, tou bhegue nasmens melguod. Teve senti reguom, maghti ed decorom eneu antom. Estod.
- Approximate translation:
Our heavenly Father, hallowed be your name, may your kingdom come over us, your will be done in heaven and on earth, give us our daily food this day, and forgive our debts, as we forgive our debtors. Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one. Yours is a kingdom, power and glory without end. Amen.
Aquan nepot
Puros esiem. Deivons aisiem. Aquan Nepot dverbhos me rues! Meg moris me gherdmi. Deivos, tebherm gheumi. Vicpoteis tebherm gheumi. Ansues tebherm guemi. Nasmei guertins dedemi! Ad bherome deivobhos ci sime guerenti! Dotores vesvom, nas nasmei creddhemes. Aquan Nepot, dverons sceledhi! Dghom Mater toi gheumes! Dghemia Mater, tebhiom gheumes! Meg moris nas gherdmi. Eghueies, nasmei sercemes.
- Approximate translation:
I am clearing myself. I worship the gods. Son of Water, open the doors for me! The big sea surrounds me. I make offerings to the gods. I make offerings to my ancestors. I make offerings to the spirits. Thank you! We are here to honor the gods. Donors to the gods, we have dedicated our hearts to you. Son of Water, open the doors for us! Mother Earth, we worship you! We make offerings to you! We are surrounded by a large sea. (...)
Mari
Decta esies, Mari plena gusteis, arios com tvoio esti, guerta enter guenai ed guertos ogos esti tovi bhermi, Iese. Isere Mari, deivosuo mater, meldhe nobhei agosorbhos nu dictique naseri merti. Estod.
- Approximate translation:
Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you, blessed among women and blessed is the Fruit of your womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. Amen.
Creddheo
Creddheo deivom, paterom duom dheterom cemenes ertique, Iesom Christomque sunum sovom pregenetom, ariom naserom. Ansus iserod tectom guenios Mariam genetom. (...) ad lendhem mertvos, vitero genetom agheni tritoi necubhos, uposteightom en cemenem. Sedeti decsteroi deivosuo pateronos. Creddheo ansum iserom, eclesiam catholicam iseram, (…) iserom, (…) agosom ed guivum eneu antom. Decos esiet patorei sunumque ansumque iseroi, agroi ed nu, ed eneu antom ad aivumque. Estod.
- Approximate translation:
I believe in God, the Almighty Father, the creator of heaven and earth, and Jesus Christ, his own Son, our Lord. By conceiving the Holy Spirit the Virgin Mary was born. (...) to the ground of the dead, and who was resurrected on the third day after death, ascended into heaven, sat down to the right of God his Father. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy Catholic Church, (...) saints, (forgiveness) sins and life without end. Glory to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit equally now and without end and forever. Amen
see also The ancient language from which the languages belonging to this family of languages originated (Latin in relation to the Romance languages: French, Italian, Spanish, Romanian, etc.). A proto-language not recorded in writing (for example, Indo-European ... ... Big Encyclopedic Dictionary
A; m. Lingv. An ancient language common to a group of related languages and theoretically reconstructed on the basis of a comparison of these languages. ◁ Proto-linguistic, oh, oh. Lingv. Second theory. Nth forms. * * * proto-language is an ancient language, from which languages arose, ... ... encyclopedic Dictionary
- (language basis). The oldest of related languages, reconstructed by applying a comparative historical method, conceived as the source of all languages that make up a common family (group) and developed on its basis. Proto-language Indo-European. ... ... Dictionary of linguistic terms
INDO-EUROPEAN, oh, oh. 1.see Indo-Europeans. 2. Relating to the Indo-Europeans, to their origin, languages, national character, way of life, culture, as well as to the territories and places of their residence, their internal structure, history; such,… … Ozhegov's Explanatory Dictionary
Proto-language- (language base) language, from the dialects of which a group of related languages originated, otherwise called a family (see Genealogical classification of languages). From the point of view of the formal apparatus of comparative historical linguistics, each unit of the proto-language ... Linguistic Encyclopedic Dictionary
I. the proto-language in the era before dividing its own into separate I. languages had the following consonant sounds. A. Explosive, or explosive. Labial: voiceless p and voiced b; front-lingual teeth: voiceless t and voiced d; posterior lingual anterior and palatine: deaf. k1 and ... ...
Language is the basis, proto-language, a term denoting a hypothetical state of a group or family of related languages, reconstructed on the basis of a system of correspondences that are established between languages in the field of phonetics, grammar and semantics ... ... Great Soviet Encyclopedia
I. the proto-language in the era, before dividing its own into separate languages, had the following vowel sounds: i î, and û, e ê, o ô, and â, and an indefinite vowel. In addition, in certain cases the role of vowel sounds was played by smooth consonants r, l and nasal n, t ... ... Encyclopedic Dictionary of F.A. Brockhaus and I.A. Efron
Aya, oh. ◊ Indo-European languages. Lingv. The general name of a vast group of modern and ancient related languages of Asia and Europe, to which the languages of Indian, Iranian, Greek, Slavic, Baltic, Germanic, Celtic, Romance and ... encyclopedic Dictionary
proto-language- The common ancestor of these languages, discovered by comparative study of related languages (see Kinship of languages). Such are, for example, P. Common Slavic, or Proto-Slavic, from which all Slavic languages (Russian, Polish, Serbian, etc.) originated, ... ... Grammar Dictionary: Grammar and Linguistic Terms
The ancient language from which the languages belonging to this family of languages originated (Latin in relation to the Romance languages: French, Italian, Spanish, Romanian, etc.). A proto-language not recorded in writing (for example, Indo-European ... ... Big Encyclopedic Dictionary
A; m. Lingv. An ancient language common to a group of related languages and theoretically reconstructed on the basis of a comparison of these languages. ◁ Proto-linguistic, oh, oh. Lingv. Second theory. Nth forms. * * * proto-language is an ancient language, from which languages arose, ... ... encyclopedic Dictionary
- (language basis). The oldest of related languages, reconstructed by applying a comparative historical method, conceived as the source of all languages that make up a common family (group) and developed on its basis. Proto-language Indo-European. ... ... Dictionary of linguistic terms
INDO-EUROPEAN, oh, oh. 1.see Indo-Europeans. 2. Relating to the Indo-Europeans, to their origin, languages, national character, way of life, culture, as well as to the territories and places of their residence, their internal structure, history; such,… … Ozhegov's Explanatory Dictionary
Proto-language- (language base) language, from the dialects of which a group of related languages originated, otherwise called a family (see Genealogical classification of languages). From the point of view of the formal apparatus of comparative historical linguistics, each unit of the proto-language ... Linguistic Encyclopedic Dictionary
I. the proto-language in the era before dividing its own into separate I. languages had the following consonant sounds. A. Explosive, or explosive. Labial: voiceless p and voiced b; front-lingual teeth: voiceless t and voiced d; posterior lingual anterior and palatine: deaf. k1 and ... ...
Language is the basis, proto-language, a term denoting a hypothetical state of a group or family of related languages, reconstructed on the basis of a system of correspondences that are established between languages in the field of phonetics, grammar and semantics ... ... Great Soviet Encyclopedia
I. the proto-language in the era, before dividing its own into separate languages, had the following vowel sounds: i î, and û, e ê, o ô, and â, and an indefinite vowel. In addition, in certain cases the role of vowel sounds was played by smooth consonants r, l and nasal n, t ... ... Encyclopedic Dictionary of F.A. Brockhaus and I.A. Efron
Aya, oh. ◊ Indo-European languages. Lingv. The general name of a vast group of modern and ancient related languages of Asia and Europe, to which the languages of Indian, Iranian, Greek, Slavic, Baltic, Germanic, Celtic, Romance and ... encyclopedic Dictionary
proto-language- The common ancestor of these languages, discovered by comparative study of related languages (see Kinship of languages). Such are, for example, P. Common Slavic, or Proto-Slavic, from which all Slavic languages (Russian, Polish, Serbian, etc.) originated, ... ... Grammar Dictionary: Grammar and Linguistic Terms
INDO-EUROPEAN LANGUAGES, one of the largest language families in Eurasia, spread over the past five centuries also in North and South America, Australia and partly in Africa. Before the era of the great geographical discoveries, Indo-European languages occupied an area from Ireland in the west to East Turkestan in the east and from Scandinavia in the north to India in the south. The Indo-European family includes about 140 languages, which are spoken by a total of about 2 billion people (2007, estimate), with English taking the first place in terms of the number of native speakers.
The role of studying Indo-European languages in the development of comparative-historical linguistics is important. Indo-European languages were one of the first families of languages of great temporal depth postulated by linguists. Other families in science, as a rule, distinguished (directly or at least indirectly), focusing on the experience of studying Indo-European languages, just as comparative-historical grammars and dictionaries (primarily etymological) for other language families took into account the experience of corresponding works on the material of Indo-European languages for which these works were first written. It was during the study of Indo-European languages that the ideas of a proto-language, regular phonetic correspondences, reconstruction of the linguistic, genealogical tree of languages were first formulated; a comparative historical method has been developed.
Within the Indo-European family, the following branches (groups) are distinguished, including those consisting of one language: Indo-Iranian languages, Greek, Italic languages (including Latin), descendants of Latin Romance languages, Celtic languages, Germanic languages, Baltic languages, Slavic languages , Armenian, Albanian, Hittite-Luwian languages (Anatolian) and Tocharian languages. In addition, it includes a number of extinct languages (known from extremely scarce sources - as a rule, from a few inscriptions, glosses, anthroponyms and place names among Greek and Byzantine authors): Phrygian language, Thracian language, Illyrian language, Messapian language, Venetian language, ancient Macedonian language. These languages cannot be reliably assigned to any of the known branches (groups) and, possibly, represent separate branches (groups).
There were undoubtedly other Indo-European languages as well. Some of them died out without a trace, others left behind a few traces in toponomastics and substrate vocabulary (see Substratum). Attempts were made to restore individual Indo-European languages from these traces. The most famous reconstructions of this kind are the Pelasgian language (the language of the pre-Greek population of Ancient Greece) and the Cimmerian language, which supposedly left traces of borrowing in the Slavic and Baltic languages. The isolation of the layer of Pelasgian borrowings in the Greek language and Cimmerian - in the Balto-Slavic languages, based on the establishment of a special system of regular phonetic correspondences, different from those that are characteristic of the primordial vocabulary, allows us to build a whole series of Greek, Slavic and Baltic words that did not previously have etymology to Indo-European roots. The specific genetic affiliation of the Pelasgian and Cimmerian languages is difficult to determine.
Over the past several centuries, during the expansion of Indo-European languages on a Germanic and Romance basis, several dozen new languages have been formed - pidgins, some of which subsequently creolized (see Creole languages) and became quite full-fledged languages both in grammatical and functional terms. These are Tok Pisin, Bislama, Cryo in Sierra Leone, The Gambia and Equatorial Guinea (on an English basis); Seychelles Sechelles, Haitian, Mauritian and Reunion (on Reunion Island in the Indian Ocean; see Creoles) Creoles (French based); Unserdeutsch in Papua New Guinea (German-based); palenquero in Colombia (on a Spanish basis); kabuverdianu, cryoulo (both in Cape Verde) and papiamento on the islands of Aruba, Bonaire and Curacao (on a Portuguese basis). In addition, some international artificial languages such as Esperanto are basically Indo-European.
The traditional branching scheme of the Indo-European family is shown in the diagram.
The collapse of the Proto-Indo-European language-base dates back no later than the 4th millennium BC. The greatest antiquity of the separation of the Hittite-Luwian languages is beyond doubt, the time of the separation of the Tocharian branch is more controversial due to the paucity of Tocharian data.
Attempts were made to combine various Indo-European branches with each other; for example, hypotheses were expressed about the special proximity of the Baltic and Slavic, Italic and Celtic languages. The most generally accepted is the unification of Indo-Aryan languages and Iranian languages (as well as Dardic languages and Nuristan languages) into the Indo-Iranian branch - in a number of cases, it is possible to restore the verbal formulas that existed in the Indo-Iranian proto-language. The Balto-Slavic unity is somewhat more controversial; other hypotheses are rejected in modern science. In principle, different linguistic features divide the Indo-European linguistic space in different ways. So, according to the results of the development of Indo-European back-lingual consonants, Indo-European languages are divided into the so-called Satem languages and Centum languages (the associations are named after the reflection of the Proto-Indo-European word "hundred" in different languages: in the Satem languages its initial sound is reflected in the form "s", "sh" and etc., in centum - in the form of "k", "x", etc.). The use of different sounds (bh and w) in case endings divides the Indo-European languages into the so-called -mi-languages (Germanic, Baltic, Slavic) and -bhi-languages (Indo-Iranian, Italian, Greek). Different indicators of the passive voice combine, on the one hand, the Italic, Celtic, Phrygian and Tocharian languages (indicator -r), on the other hand, Greek and Indo-Iranian languages (indicator -i). The presence of the augment (a special verb prefix that conveys the meaning of the past tense) opposes the Greek, Phrygian, Armenian and Indo-Iranian languages to all others. For almost any pair of Indo-European languages, you can find a number of common language features and lexemes that will be absent in other languages; on this observation the so-called wave theory was based (see Genealogical classification of languages). A. Meye proposed the above scheme of dialectal division of the Indo-European community.
The reconstruction of the Indo-European proto-language is facilitated by the presence of a sufficient number of ancient written monuments in the languages of different branches of the Indo-European family: from the 17th century BC, monuments of Hittite-Luwian languages are known, from the 14th century BC - Greek, by about the 12th century BC (recorded significantly later) the language of the hymns of the Rig Veda, by the 6th century BC - monuments of the ancient Persian language, from the end of the 7th century BC - the Italic languages. In addition, some languages that received writing much later retained a number of archaic features.
The main consonant correspondences in the languages of different branches of the Indo-European family are shown in the table.
In addition, the so-called laryngal consonants are restored - partly on the basis of the consonants h, hh attested in the Hittite-Luwian languages, partly on the basis of systemic considerations. The number of laryngals, as well as their exact phonetic interpretation, varies among researchers. The structure of the system of Indo-European stop consonants is presented unequally in different works: some scientists believe that the Indo-European proto-language distinguished between voiceless, voiced and voiced aspirated consonants (this point of view is presented in the table), others suggest opposition between voiceless, abruptive and voiced or voiceless, strong and voiced consonants (in the last two concepts, aspiration is an optional feature of both voiced and voiceless consonants), etc. There is also a point of view according to which 4 series of stops were distinguished in the Indo-European proto-language: voiced, voiceless, voiced aspirated and voiceless aspirated - the same as, for example, in Sanskrit.
The reconstructed Indo-European proto-language appears, like the ancient Indo-European languages, a language with a developed case system, with a rich verb morphology, with a complex accentuation. Both the name and the verb have 3 numbers - singular, dual and plural. The problem for the reconstruction of a whole series of grammatical categories in the Proto-Indo-European language is the lack of corresponding forms in the most ancient Indo-European languages - Hittite-Luwian: this state of affairs may indicate either that these categories developed in Proto-Indo-European rather late, after the separation of the Hittite-Luwian branch, or that the Hittite-Luwian languages have undergone significant changes in the grammatical system.
Indo-European proto-language is characterized by rich possibilities of word formation, including word composition; using reduplication. In it, alternations of sounds were widely represented - both automatic and performing a grammatical function.
The syntax was characterized, in particular, by the coordination of adjectives and demonstrative pronouns with the nouns determined by gender, number and case, the use of enclitic particles (placed after the first full-stressed word in a sentence; see Clytica). The word order in the sentence was probably free [the order of subject (S) + direct object (O) + predicate verb (V) was probably preferred].
The concepts of the Proto-Indo-European language continue to be revised and refined in a number of aspects - this is due, firstly, to the emergence of new data (the discovery of Anatolian and Tocharian languages in the late 19th - early 20th centuries played a special role), and secondly, the expansion of knowledge about the device human language in general.
Reconstruction of the Proto-Indo-European lexical fund makes it possible to judge the culture of the Proto-Indo-Europeans, as well as their ancestral home (see Indo-Europeans).
According to the theory of V.M. Illich-Svitych, the Indo-European family is an integral part of the so-called Nostratic macrofamily (see Nostratic languages), which makes it possible to verify the Indo-European reconstruction with external comparison data.
The typological diversity of Indo-European languages is great. Among them there are languages with the basic word order: SVO, such as Russian or English; SOV, such as many Indo-Iranian languages; VSO, such as Irish [compare the Russian sentence "Father praises his son" and its translations into Hindi - pita bete kl tarif karta hai (literally - 'Father praises his son to eat') and into Irish - Moraionn an tathar a mhac (literally - 'The father praises his son')]. Some Indo-European languages use prepositions, others use postpositions [compare Russian “near the house” and Bengali baritar kache (literally - ‘at home’)]; some are nominative (like the languages of Europe; see Nominative system), others have an ergative structure (for example, in Hindi; see Ergative system); some have retained a significant part of the Indo-European case system (like the Baltic and Slavic ones), others have lost the cases (for example, English), the third (Tocharian) have developed new cases from postpositions; some tend to express grammatical meanings within a significant word (synthetism), others with the help of special service words (analyticism), etc. In Indo-European languages one can find such phenomena as izafet (in Iranian), group inflection (in Tocharian), opposition of inclusive and exclusive (tok-pisin).
Modern Indo-European languages use scripts based on the Greek alphabet (languages of Europe; see Greek writing), Brahmi letters (Indo-Aryan; see Indian writing), some Indo-European languages use scripts of Semitic origin. For a number of ancient languages, cuneiform (Hittite-Luwian, Old Persian), hieroglyphics (Luwian hieroglyphic language) were used; the ancient Celts used the alphabetical Ogamic script.
Lit. : Brugmann K., Delbrück B. Grundriß der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen. 2. Aufl. Strasbourg, 1897-1916. Bd 1-2; Indogermanische Grammatik / Hrsg. J. Kurylowicz. Hdlb. 1968-1986. Bd 1-3; Semerenyi O. Introduction to Comparative Linguistics. M., 1980; Gamkrelidze T.V., Ivanov Vyach. Sun. Indo-European language and Indo-Europeans: Reconstruction and historical-typological analysis of the proto-language and proto-culture. TB., 1984. Part 1-2; Beekes R. S. P. Comparative Indo-European linguistics. Amst. 1995; Meye A. Introduction to the comparative study of Indo-European languages. 4th ed., M., 2007. Dictionaries: Schrader O. Reallexikon der indogermanischen Altertumskunde. 2. Aufl. V.; Lpz., 1917-1929. Bd 1-2; Pokorny J. Indoger-manisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Bern; Münch., 1950-1969. Lfg 1-18.
