Search Results

Tijmen Pronk

1 Introduction How many vowels did Proto-Indo-European ( PIE ) have? This is a question that became pertinent after the discovery of the laryngeals. It became clear that for the vast majority of cases in which Indo-Europeanists used to reconstruct * a and * ā , these vowels stood next to * h 2

The Precursors of Proto-Indo-European

The Indo-Anatolian and Indo-Uralic Hypotheses


Edited by Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk

In The Precursors of Proto-Indo-European some of the world’s leading experts in historical linguistics shed new light on two hypotheses about the prehistory of the Indo-European language family, the so-called Indo-Anatolian and Indo-Uralic hypotheses. The Indo-Anatolian hypothesis states that the Anatolian branch of the Indo-European family should be viewed as a sister language of ‘classical’ Proto-Indo-European, the ancestor of all the other, non-Anatolian branches. The common ancestor of all Indo-European languages, including Anatolian, can then be called Proto-Indo-Anatolian. The Indo-Uralic hypothesis states that the closest genetic relative of Indo-European is the Uralic language family, and that both derive from a common ancestor called Proto-Indo-Uralic. The book unravels the history of these hypotheses and scrutinizes the evidence for and against them.

Contributors are Stefan H. Bauhaus, Rasmus G. Bjørn, Dag Haug, Petri Kallio, Simona Klemenčič, Alwin Kloekhorst, Frederik Kortlandt, Guus Kroonen, Martin J. Kümmel, Milan Lopuhaä-Zwakenberg, Alexander Lubotsky, Rosemarie Lühr, Michaël Peyrot, Tijmen Pronk, Andrei Sideltsev, Michiel de Vaan, Mikhail Zhivlov.


Guus Kroonen

Elsewhere, I have pointed out the possibility that the Proto-Indo-European mediae , when envisioned as glottalized stops, can have developed from preglottalized nasals, i.e. * ɗ < * ˀn , * ɠ < * ˀŋ . This development is implied by the lexical distribution of the participal no -suffix, which

Laura Grestenberger

1. Introduction: The Proto-Indo-European Middle The reconstruction of the Proto-Indo-European middle is notoriously fraught with difficulties, both in terms of its morphology and its function(s) in the protolanguage. Concerning the formal side, Jasanoff’s 2003 reconstruction of an

Carlotta Viti

such as the nominativus pendens or impersonal verbs, for example, it has been suggested that Proto-Indo-European ( PIE ) was originally a consistent topic-prominent language (Lehmann 1976) or a consistent active-stative language (Bauer 2000). Even in recent times, as we will see below, regularity has


Nicholas Zair

In The Reflexes of the Proto-Indo-European Laryngeals in Celtic, Nicholas Zair for the first time collects and assesses all the words from the Celtic languages which contained a laryngeal, and identifies the regular results of the laryngeals in each phonetic environment. This allows him to formulate previously unrecognised sound changes affecting Proto-Celtic, and assess the competing explanations for other developments. This work has far-reaching consequences for the understanding of the historical phonology and morphology of the Celtic languages, and for etymological work involving the Celtic language, along with implications for Indo-European sound laws and the Indo-European syllable. A major conclusion is that the laryngeals cannot be used to argue for an Italo-Celtic language family.

Jóhanna Barðdal and Thomas Smitherman

complex than words. On this basis, we suggest three different reconstructions. First, a reconstruction of a predicate-specific oblique subject construction with the verb ‘be,’ a dative subject and a resultative participial of a verb meaning ‘know’ for Proto-Indo-European, derived from the Proto-Indo-European

Ryan Sandell

’). Although this lexeme can be analyzed without problem in terms of inherited Indo-European lexical components—a root */dek̑-/ ‘perceive, be aware of’ (cf.  LIV 2 :110–111) and ablauting perfect active participle suffix */-u̯ós-/~/-ús-/—whether the stem dāśvā́ṃs - proper is older than Proto-Indic (at the


Michiel de Vaan

1. The Proto-Indo-European root noun * sem- , * sm- (Beekes & de Vaan 2011: 210) is reflected in the cardinal ‘one’ in a number of ancient Indo-European languages: Greek εἷς, accusative ἕνα < * sem- , Armenian mi < * miyo- << f. * smiʕ- (Martirosyan 2010: 468), Tocharian A sas , Tocharian B