Talk:Proto-Indo-European language

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Proto-Indo-European language was a Language and literature good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
January 9, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed
WikiProject Languages (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of standardized, informative and easy-to-use resources about languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

A question (just for fun)[edit]

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. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 21:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

hi I am idielive, and I think I can help you. Though my translation probably isn't perfect, I deem it to be sufficient. Here goes. "Só óynos gʰh₁bʰeo gelnosom gʰebh PIE-yo lítreh₂ ne-kert." A rough translation of this sentence would be, "This one (nominative case) have power (accusative case) give PIE (genetive case) level (instrumental case) no-hard (meaning "simple")." Note that lítreh₂ is a Mediterranean loanword and is not indo european. Also, I got gelnos (power) from an online PIE dictionary which may or may not be accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idielive (talkcontribs) 16:35, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

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)
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)

Thank you for your suggestions. About the velars, I am writing from an Indo European speaker's perspective, that is, they probably made no distinction between the pure velars and the palatal velars, just as the average english speaker sees no difference between the k in keen and the k in kin. On a personal level however, I believe that the palatal velars in PIE occurred much less than the pure velars in the actual language. "Só h₁éwHtōr bʰéh₂ti PIE? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idielive (talkcontribs) 20:35, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)
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)
So, perhaps "nos dn̥ǵʰwā́m", then? – Greg Pandatshang (talk) 22:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

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)

Subfamily Clades: Albanian?[edit]

Why is proto-Albanian not featured among the subfamilies? (talk) 06:37, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

it's in the Subfamilies section --Cornellier (talk) 17:40, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)

In fiction?[edit]

Is there a "Proto-Indo-European in fiction" section somewhere? SharkD  Talk  01:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Translation of this Article into PIE[edit]

Méħtēr Dn̥gʰwéħs hes bʰrenk-ħed-n̥serodī komoini-anés Aryés nu Wekusperosés Dn̥gʰwéħs, huru uper ħel spregénti dn̥gʷʰā́m wéikn̥s eréh. Wérgóm bʰrenkénti Méħtēr dn̥ǵʰuħés ħed nosero dī heti ħel ánteros méħ-dn̥gʷʰéħs, nu tod hes gneʕyéti heti ħel ánteros méħ-dn̥gʷʰéħs tosyo dyes. Mē wérgóm yom dékmt-hnéun kmtóm yeh bhrenk PIE ħed nosero dī wē tosyo dʰugħtḗr dn̥gʰuħés (Méħ-Génhménséh), nu mē teksneħés nosero dyés bʰrenk PIE ħed nosero dī, līg Kʷód-preih Teks-neħ mag so kawd-teħéy. Toi teksneħes gʰebʰ ħel weidstos PIEés, rō n̥wrei dn̥gʰuħés hes. PIE spresprógés (óynos dn̥gʰwéħs) 3500 ħenti Komoini Dī yom Néwos Dī, to ħel mon spreg ki. Kur-Kóymos-Seku spreg agréh Kóymos Aryés hehóstés Kr̥snós Selos lendʰés ħeus Wekusperosés. Wérgóm bʰrenk-ħed-n̥serodī Aryés deiwóns. Aryós gʰreh ħeu ħepo swe kawd-teħéy mwoénd, ki kawd-teħéy Méħtēr Dn̥gʰwéħs ħmigu ʕebhi gneʕénti Wekusperos Dn̥gʰwéħs (ħeltós ‎nu néwos). PIEés megħlos merbʰḗ nu mē dʰeigu ardyéi wr̥dʰomés, nu wer-wṓkus. PIE wṓkus, nu wr̥dʰom ardes hes bʰrenk-ħed-n̥serodī. Ki-dei, huru uper ħel spregénti dʰugħtḗr dn̥ǵʰwéħes PIEés hes Spanish, English, Hindi, Portuguese, Bengali, Russian, Punjabi, German, French, nu Marathi.

Mag Tengés

n̥hen ħenti kaput tenkó ħed spreg PIE deru. Ke hes bʰrenk-ħed-n̥serodī dʰugħtḗr dn̥gʰuħmós so dés, Kʷód-preih Teks-neħéh. [1] Kʷód-preih Teks-neħéh hes dʰeh ħen Neogrammarian yewos so spreg Arya-Wekusperos wṓkus yewos hes dʰéht. Teksneħ seku Kʷód-preih médʰyos dwóh Dn̥gʰwéħsés kwe dʰeh wṓkus yewos gʰed komoini anm. Sekudhí, seku Kʷód-preih toibʰi wr̥dʰom Italianéh kwe English: piede kwe foot, padre kwe father, pesce kwe fish. Toi hes mē līg. Megʰm̥ós spreg bei dn̥gʰwéħn̥s gʰreh óynos méħtrey. Idielive (talk) 23:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

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)

Sorry but it sounds much like Lovecraftian defilement of PIE. I'm disgusted. Moreover, English words crept inside. I mean that Y instead of J and J instead of DZ makes the two/third to Lovecraftization of it. Horrible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:15, 5 March 2017 (UTC), I dont know what Lovecraftian means but I will admit to some fault. You criticism is passionate and I think it is justified, since I have obsessively placed ħ in my translation, thus making it unnatural sounding. Not only that but I purposely wrote in an English word order so as to make it easier to translate. Next time my translations will be more natural. Idielive (talk) 2:33, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Question Please[edit]

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idielive (talkcontribs) 14:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

You should ask such questions at the reference desk: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language. An article talk page is only meant for discussions about the article, not about the topic in general.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 01:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC)