A GRAMMAR OF

MODERN

INDO-EUROPEAN
Third Edition

Part I. Language and Culture

Part II. Phonology & Morphology

Part III. Syntax

Texts & Dictionary

Part IV.
Etymology

Carlos Quiles Fernando López-Menchero

 Version 5.25 (July 2017)
© 2017 by Carlos Quiles
© 2017 by Fernando López-Menchero
ACADEMIA PRISCA
Avda. Sta. María de la Cabeza, 3, E-LL, Badajoz 06001, Spain.
Badajoz – Leg. Dep. BA-145-0 (2006) | Sevilla – Leg. Dep. SE -4405-2007 U.E.
ISBN-13: 978-1480049765 | ISBN-10: 148004976X
Information, translations and revisions of this title: <https://indo-european.info/>
Discussion of Modern Indo-European at <https://academiaprisca.org/forum/>

Printed in the European Union

Published by the Academia Prisca <https://academiaprisca.org/>
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-
ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit
<http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/> or send a letter to
Creative Commons, 171 Second Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, California, 94105, USA.

Images taken or modified from Wikimedia projects are referenced with description and author-
date, with usernames (or real names, if available), and links to the websites of origin in the
Bibliography section, at the end of this book, unless they are in the public domain (PD).

This free (e)book is intended for nonprofit and educational purposes, its authors do not attribute
themselves the authorship of the excerpts referenced, it is not intended for specialised readers in
IE linguistics (so the potential market of the copyrighted works remains intact), and the amount
and substantiality of the portions used in relation to the copyrighted works as a whole are
neglectible. Therefore, the use of excerpts should fall within the fair use policy of international
copyright laws. Since revisions of this free (e)book are published immediately, no material
contained herein remains against the will and rights of authors or publishers.

While every precaution has been taken in the preparation of this book, the publisher and
authors assume no responsibility for errors or omissions, or for damages resulting from
the use of the information contained herein. responsibility for the persistence or accuracy
of urls for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this publication, and does
not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.
Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................................................................................... 3

PREFACE ............................................................................................................................... 9
GUIDE TO THE READER ....................................................................................................... 13
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS........................................................................................................ 15
CONSIDERATIONS OF METHOD ............................................................................................ 16
The Three-Dorsal Theory .............................................................................................. 19
The Loss of Laryngeals .................................................................................................. 27
CONVENTIONS USED IN THIS BOOK .................................................................................... 33
Writing System ............................................................................................................... 35
Modern Indo-European ................................................................................................. 42

1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 49
1.1. THE INDO-EUROPEAN LANGUAGE FAMILY .................................................................. 49
1.2. TRADITIONAL VIEWS ................................................................................................... 51
1.3. THE THEORY OF THE THREE STAGES............................................................................ 53
1.4. THE PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN URHEIMAT ..................................................................... 58
1.5. OTHER ARCHAEOLINGUISTIC THEORIES....................................................................... 68
1.6. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LANGUAGES ........................................................................ 70
1.7. INDO-EUROPEAN DIALECTS ......................................................................................... 72
Schleicher’s Fable: From PIE to Modern English ........................................................ 72
1.7.1. Northern Indo-European dialects ........................................................................ 75
1.7.2. Southern Indo-European Dialects...................................................................... 106
1.7.3. Anatolian Languages ......................................................................................... 124

2. PHONOLOGY ................................................................................................................ 131

2.1. CLASSIFICATION OF SOUNDS ...................................................................................... 131
2.2. PRONUNCIATION ........................................................................................................ 134
2.3. SYLLABLES ................................................................................................................ 137
2.4. PROSODY.................................................................................................................... 139
2.5. ACCENT...................................................................................................................... 140
2.6. VOWEL CHANGE ........................................................................................................ 143
2.7. CONSONANT CHANGE ................................................................................................ 145

3. WORDS AND THEIR FORMS .................................................................................... 149

 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

3.1. THE PARTS OF SPEECH ................................................................................................ 149

3.2. INFLECTION ................................................................................................................ 150
3.3. ROOT AND STEM ......................................................................................................... 151
3.4. GENDER ...................................................................................................................... 154
3.5. NUMBER ..................................................................................................................... 156

4. NOUNS ............................................................................................................................. 159

4.1. DECLENSION OF NOUNS .............................................................................................. 159
4.2. FIRST DECLENSION ..................................................................................................... 164
4.2.1. First Declension Paradigm ................................................................................ 164
4.2.2. First Declension in Examples ............................................................................. 165
4.2.3. The Plural in the First Declension ..................................................................... 166
4.3. SECOND DECLENSION ................................................................................................. 167
4.3.1. Second Declension Paradigm ............................................................................. 167
4.3.2. Second Declension in Examples ......................................................................... 168
4.5.3. The Plural in the Second Declension.................................................................. 169
4.4. THIRD DECLENSION .................................................................................................... 170
4.4.1. Third Declension Paradigm ............................................................................... 170
4.4.2. In i, u................................................................................................................... 171
4.4.3. In Diphthong....................................................................................................... 173
4.4.4. The Plural in the Third and Fourth Declension ................................................. 174
4.5. FOURTH DECLENSION ................................................................................................. 175
4.5.1. Fourth Declension Paradigm ............................................................................. 175
4.5.2. In Occlusive, m, l ................................................................................................ 176
4.5.3. In r, n, s............................................................................................................... 178
4.5.4. The Plural in the Fourth Declension .................................................................. 179
4.6. VARIABLE NOUNS....................................................................................................... 179
4.7. INFLECTION TYPES...................................................................................................... 180
Excursus: Nominal Accent-Ablaut Patterns ................................................................. 182
4.8. NUMBER DEVELOPMENTS: THE DUAL ........................................................................ 186

5. ADJECTIVES ................................................................................................................. 187

5.1. INFLECTION OF ADJECTIVES ....................................................................................... 187
5.2. THE MOTION............................................................................................................... 187
5.3. ADJECTIVE SPECIALISATION ....................................................................................... 189
5.4. COMPARISON OF ADJECTIVES ..................................................................................... 191

4
 Table of Contents

5.5. NUMERALS ................................................................................................................. 193

5.5.1. Classification of Numerals ................................................................................. 193
5.5.2. Cardinals and Ordinals ..................................................................................... 194
5.5.3. Declension of Cardinals and Ordinals .............................................................. 197
5.5.4. Distributives ....................................................................................................... 199
5.5.5. Numeral Adverbs ............................................................................................... 200
5.5.6. Multiplicatives.................................................................................................... 201

6. PRONOUNS .................................................................................................................... 203

6.1. ABOUT THE PRONOUNS .............................................................................................. 203
6.2. PERSONAL PRONOUNS ................................................................................................ 203
6.3. REFLEXIVE PRONOUNS ............................................................................................... 205
6.4. POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS .............................................................................................. 206
6.5. ANAPHORIC PRONOUNS ............................................................................................. 206
6.6. DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS ..................................................................................... 207
6.7. INTERROGATIVE AND INDEFINITE PRONOUNS ............................................................ 209
6.7.1. Introduction ....................................................................................................... 209
6.7.2. Compounds ........................................................................................................ 211
6.7.3. Correlatives ....................................................................................................... 212
6.8. RELATIVE PRONOUNS ................................................................................................ 213
6.9. OTHER PRONOUNS ..................................................................................................... 214

7. VERBS ............................................................................................................................. 215

7.1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 215
7.1.1. Voice, Mood, Tense, Person, Number ................................................................ 215
7.1.2. Voice .................................................................................................................. 216
7.1.3. Moods................................................................................................................. 217
7.1.4. Aspect ................................................................................................................. 218
7.1.5. Tenses of the Finite Verb ................................................................................... 219
7.2. FORMS OF THE VERB .................................................................................................. 219
7.2.1. The Verbal Stems ............................................................................................... 219
7.2.2. Verb-Endings ..................................................................................................... 220
7.2.3. The Thematic Vowel ........................................................................................... 226
7.3. THE CONJUGATIONS ................................................................................................... 227
7.4. THE FOUR STEMS ....................................................................................................... 231
7.4.1. Tense-Stems and Verb Derivation ...................................................................... 231

5
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

7.4.2. The Present Stem ................................................................................................ 232

7.4.3. The Aorist Stem................................................................................................... 244
7.4.4. The Perfect Stem ................................................................................................. 247
7.5. MOOD STEMS.............................................................................................................. 249
7.7. NOUN AND ADJECTIVE FORMS.................................................................................... 253
7.8. CONJUGATED EXAMPLES ............................................................................................ 258
7.8.1. Thematic Verbs ................................................................................................... 258
7.8.2. Athematic Inflection............................................................................................ 263
7.8.3. Common PIE Stems ............................................................................................ 267
7.9. VERBAL COMPOSITION ............................................................................................... 269
7.10. THE VERBAL ACCENT ............................................................................................... 269

8. PARTICLES .................................................................................................................... 271

8.1. PARTICLES .................................................................................................................. 271
8.2. ADVERBS .................................................................................................................... 273
8.3. DERIVATION OF ADVERBS .......................................................................................... 273
8.4. PREPOSITIONS ............................................................................................................. 275
8.5. CONJUNCTIONS ........................................................................................................... 278
8.6. INTERJECTIONS ........................................................................................................... 280

9. MORPHOSYNTAX ........................................................................................................ 283

9.1. VERBAL MORPHOSYNTAX .......................................................................................... 283
9.1.1. Person................................................................................................................. 283
9.1.2. Tense-Aspect and Mood...................................................................................... 283
9.1.3. Voice ................................................................................................................... 287
9.2. NOMINAL MORPHOSYNTAX ........................................................................................ 288
9.2.1. Nominative.......................................................................................................... 288
9.2.2. Vocative .............................................................................................................. 288
9.2.3. Accusative ........................................................................................................... 289
9.2.4. Instrumental........................................................................................................ 290
9.2.5. Dative ................................................................................................................. 291
9.2.6. Ablative............................................................................................................... 291
9.2.7. Genitive .............................................................................................................. 292
9.2.8. Locative .............................................................................................................. 293
9.2.9. Case Forms: Adverbial Elements ....................................................................... 293

10. SENTENCE SYNTAX .................................................................................................. 297

6
 Table of Contents

10.1. THE SENTENCE ......................................................................................................... 297

10.1.1. Kinds of Sentences ........................................................................................... 298
10.1.2. Nominal Sentence............................................................................................. 300
10.1.3. Verbal Sentence ............................................................................................... 302
10.2. SENTENCE MODIFIERS.............................................................................................. 303
10.2.1. Intonation Patterns .......................................................................................... 303
10.2.2. Sentence Delimiting Particles .......................................................................... 305
10.3. VERBAL MODIFIERS ................................................................................................. 307
10.3.1. Declarative Sentences ...................................................................................... 307
10.3.2. Interrogative Sentences .................................................................................... 308
10.3.3. Negative Sentences........................................................................................... 310
10.4. NOMINAL MODIFIERS ............................................................................................... 312
10.4.1. Adjective and Genitive Constructions .............................................................. 312
10.4.2. Compounds ...................................................................................................... 313
10.4.3. Determiners in Nominal Phrases ..................................................................... 319
10.4.4. Apposition ........................................................................................................ 320
10.5. MODIFIED FORMS OF PIE SIMPLE SENTENCES .......................................................... 321
10.5.1. Coordination .................................................................................................... 321
10.5.2. Complementation ............................................................................................. 323
10.5.3. Subordinate Clauses ........................................................................................ 325
10.6. SYNTACTIC CATEGORIES.......................................................................................... 332
10.6.1. Particles as Syntactic Means of Expression ..................................................... 332
10.6.2. Marked Order in Sentences.............................................................................. 335
10.6.3. Topicalisation with Reference to Emphasis ..................................................... 335
10.6.4. Wackernagel’s Law and the placement of clitics ............................................. 338
10.7. PHRASE AND SENTENCE PROSODY ........................................................................... 341
10.8. POETRY .................................................................................................................... 342
10.9. NAMES OF PERSONS.................................................................................................. 345

APPENDIX I: INDO-EUROPEAN IN USE..................................................................... 349

I.1. KOMTLOQJOM (CONVERSATION) ................................................................................ 349
I.2. HORATJOSJO KANMṆ (HORATII CARMINVM) ................................................................ 352
I.3. THE NEW TESTAMENT IN INDO-EUROPEAN ................................................................ 354
I.3.1. Pater Nos (Lord’s Prayer) ................................................................................. 354
I.3.2. Slwēje Marijā (Hail Mary) ............................................................................... 355
I.3.2. Kréddhēmi (Nicene Creed) ............................................................................... 355

7
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

I.3.3. Noudós Sūnús (Parable of the Prodigal Son)...................................................... 358

I.3.4. Newom suwéistunjom (New Testament) – Jōhanēs, 1, 1-14 ............................... 363
I.4. THE RIGVEDA IN INDO-EUROPEAN .............................................................................. 365

APPENDIX II: LATE INDO-EUROPEAN LEXICON .................................................. 367

FORMAL ASPECTS.............................................................................................................. 367
II.1. ENGLISH – LATE INDO-EUROPEAN ............................................................................. 369
II.2. LATE INDO-EUROPEAN – ENGLISH ............................................................................. 407

APPENDIX III: IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS .......................................................................... 487

III.1. ROOT NOUNS ............................................................................................................ 487
III.2. PRONOUNS ................................................................................................................ 492
III.2.1. Indefinite Pronouns .......................................................................................... 492
III.2.2. Demonstrative Pronouns .................................................................................. 493
III.2.3. Personal Pronouns ........................................................................................... 494
III.3. WORD FORMATION: COMMON PIE LENGTHENINGS AND SUFFIXES .......................... 498
III.4. PHONETIC RECONSTRUCTION ............................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
III.4.1. Consonants ........................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
III.4.2. Vowels and syllabic consonants ........................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

BIBLIOGRAPHY AND FURTHER READING.............................................................. 505

ONLINE RESOURCES .......................................................................................................... 508
Wikipedia ...................................................................................................................... 508
Images and maps .......................................................................................................... 509

BIOGRAPHY ...................................................................................................................... 511

8
 PREFACE
In this newer edition of our Grammar, we follow the first intention of this work,
trying not to include personal opinions, but a collection of the latest, most reasoned
academic papers on the latest reconstructible PIE, providing everything that might
be useful for the teaching and learning of Indo-European as a living language.
With that aim in mind, and with our compromise to follow the scientific method,
we have revised the whole text in search for out-dated material and unexplained
forms, as well as inconsistencies in reconstructions or conventions. We have also
restricted the amount of marginal choices in favour of the general agreement, so
that we could offer a clear, sober, and commonly agreed manual to learn Indo-
European.
The approach featured in this book for more than half a decade already is similar
to the one followed in Gamkrelidze–Ivanov (1994-1995), and especially to that
followed by Adrados–Bernabé–Mendoza (1995-1998). Both returned to (and
revised) the ‘Brugmannian’ Indo-European, the historical result of the development
of certain isoglosses, both phonetic (loss of laryngeals, with the development of brief
and long vowel system) and morphological (polythematic system in noun and verb,
innovations in their inflection).
Adrados–Bernabé–Mendoza (1995-1998) distinguished between Late Indo-
European and its parent-language Indo-Hittite – laryngeal, without distinction in
vowel length, monothematic system. We developed that trend further, focussing on
a post-Late Indo-European period, in search for a more certain, post-laryngeal IE,
to avoid the merged laryngeal puzzle of the ‘disintegrating Indo-European’ of
Bomhard (1984), and the conventional notation of a schwa indogermanicum (kept
in Adrados–Bernabé–Mendoza), most suitable for a description of a complex period
of phonetic change – which is possibly behind the flight of all other available
modern works on PIE to the highly theoretical (but in all other respects clear and
straightforward) PIH phonology. Morphology and syntax remain thus nearest to the
older IE languages attested, always compared to Anatolian material, but avoiding
the temporal inconsistencies that are found throughout the diachronic
reconstructions in other, current manuals.
We try to fill the void that Gamkrelidze–Ivanov and Adrados–Bernabé–Mendoza
left by following works (Lehmann 1972, Rix 1986, etc.) that already differentiated
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

PIH from Late Indo-European, trying to “see the three-stage theory to the bitter
end. Once established the existence of the three-staged IE, a lot must still be done.
We have to define the detail, and we must explain the reason for the evolution, which
formal elements does PIE deal with, and how they are ascribed to the new functions
and categories. These developments shall influence the history of individual
languages, which will have to be rewritten. Not only in the field of morphology, but
also in phonetics and syntax” (Adrados–Bernabé–Mendoza 1995-1998).
Apart from a trustable reconstruction of the direct ancestors of the older IE
languages (North-West Indo-European, Proto-Greek and Proto-Indo-Iranian), this
work ‘corrupts’ the natural language – like any classical language grammar – with
the intention to show a living language, and the need to establish some minimal
writing conventions to embellish the phonetic notation. The question ‘why not learn
Indo-European as a living language?’ arises from the same moment on when
reconstruction is focussed on a (scientifically) conservative approach – an ultimate
consequence of the three-stage-theory, and the search for more certain
reconstructions –, yielding a reliable language system. A language system free from
the need for theoretical artifices, or personal opinions on ‘original’ forms, that try to
fill unending phonetic, morphological and syntactical uncertainties of the current
diachronic PIE reconstruction.
As the learned reader might have already inferred, the question of “natural” vs.
“artificial” is not easily answered concerning ancient languages. Ancient Greek
phonetics, for example, is known through internal as well as external
reconstruction, and the actual state of the art is largely based on the body of evidence
discussed extensively by linguists and philologists of the nineteenth and twentieth
centuries, with lots of questions unsolved. Furthermore, Ancient Greek is not one
language; in fact, there are many dialects, each with different periods, and different
representations of their sounds, all of which account for what we know with the
unitary name Ancient Greek. Another example is Sanskrit, retained as different
historical linguistic stages and dialects through oral tradition. Its first writings and
grammatical rules were laid down centuries after it had ceased to be spoken, and
centuries earlier before it became the classical Indian language. Latin is indeed not
different from the above examples, being systematised in the so-called classical
period, while a real, dialectally and temporarily variable Vulgar Latin was used by
the different peoples who lived in the Roman Empire, making e.g. some questions
over the proper pronunciation still debated today.

10
 Preface

The interest in the study and use of Indo-European as a living language today is
equivalent to the interest in the study and use of these ancient languages as learned
languages in the the Byzantine Empire, India and Mediaeval Europe, respectively.
With regard to certainty in reconstruction, Late Indo-European early dialects are
not less natural than these classical languages were in the past. Even modern
languages, like English, are to a great extent learned languages, in which social
trends and linguistic artifices are constantly dividing between formal and
colloquial, educated and uneducated, often simply good or bad usage of the
language.
About the question of ‘dead’ vs. ‘living’ languages, heated debate is e.g. held on the
characterisation of Sanskrit, which is not as other dead languages, being spoken,
written and read today in India. The notion of the death of a language remains thus
in an unclear realm between academia and public opinion.
I prefer to copy Michael Coulson’s words from the preface of a great introductory
work on Sanskrit (from the Teach Yourself® series), referring originally to the way
Indians used Sanskrit as a learned (and dead) language, far beyond the rules that
grammarians had imposed. I think this text should also be valid if we substituted
‘Sanskrit’ for ‘Indo-European’; the ‘rules’ of ‘Sanskrit grammarians’ for the
‘reconstruction’ of ‘IE scholars’; and the ‘renowned Sanskrit writers’ for the
‘potential future IE writers’:
«By [the time Kālidāsa, a writer fl. ca. the fifth century AD, lived] Sanskrit was
not a mother tongue, but a language to be studied and consciously mastered. This
transformation had come about through a gradual process, the beginnings of
which are no doubt earlier than Pāṇini [ancient Indian Sanskrit grammarian, fl.
fourth century BC] himself. (…) Kālidāsa learnt his Sanskrit from the rules of a
grammarian living some 700 years before his time. Such a situation may well
strike the Western reader as paradoxical. Our nearest parallel is in the position of
Latin in Medieval Europe. There is, however, an important difference. Few would
deny Cicero or Vergil a greater importance in Latin literature than any mediaeval
author. Conversely, few Sanskritists would deny that the centre of gravity in
Sanskrit literature lies somewhere in the first millennium AD, for all that its
authors were writing in a so-called ‘dead-language’.
On this point it may be useful to make a twofold distinction – between a living
and a dead language, and between a natural and a learned one. A language is
natural when it is acquired and used instinctively; it is living when people choose
to converse and formulate ideas in it in preference to any other. To the modern
Western scholar Sanskrit is a dead as well as a learned language. To Kālidāsa or

11
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

Śaṅkara [ninth century Indian philosopher from a Dravidian-speaking region] it

was a learned language but a living one. (The term ‘learned is not entirely
satisfactory, but the term ‘artificial’, which is the obvious complementary of
‘natural’, is normally reserved for application to totally constructed languages
such as Esperanto.)
(…) Living languages, whether natural or learned, change and develop. But when
a learned language such as literary English is closely tied to, and constantly
revitalized by, a natural idiom, its opportunities for independent growth are
limited. Sanskrit provides a fascinating example of a language developing in
complete freedom from such constraints as an instrument of intellectual and
artistic expression. To say that Classical Sanskrit was written in conformity with
Pāṇini’s rules is true, but in one sense entirely misleading. Pāṇini would have been
astounded by the way in which Bāṇā or Bhavabhūti or Abhinavagupta handled the
language. It is precisely the fact that Sanskrit writers insisted on using Sanskrit as
a living and not as a dead language that has often troubled Western scholars. W.
D. Whitney, a great but startlingly arrogant American Sanskritist of the
nineteenth century, says of the Classical language: ‘Of linguistic history there is
next to nothing in it all; but only a history of style, and this for the most part
showing a gradual depravation, an increase of artificiality and an intensification
of certain more undesirable features of the language – such as the use of passive
constructions and of participles instead of verbs, and the substitution of
compounds for sentences.’ Why such a use of passives, participles and compounds
should be undesirable, let alone depraved, is left rather vague, and while there
have been considerable advances in linguistic science in the past fifty years there
seems to have been nothing which helps to clarify or justify these strictures.
Indeed, Whitney’s words would not be worth resurrecting if strong echoes of them
did not still survive in some quarters.
Acceptance of Pāṇini’s rules implied a final stabilization of the phonology of
Sanskrit, and also (at least in the negative sense that no form could be used which
was not sanctioned by him) of its morphology. But Pāṇini did not fix syntax. To
do so explicitly and incontrovertibly would be difficult in any language, given
several ways of expressing the same idea and various other ways of expressing
closely similar ideas.»
Badajoz, April 2011

12
 Preface

GUIDE TO THE READER

A. ABBREVIATIONS
abl.: ablative NP: noun phrase
acc.: accusative NWIE: North-West Indo-European
act.: active O: object
adj.: adjective Obj.: object
adv.: adverb O.Av.: Old Avestan
Alb.: Albanian O.C.S.: Old Church Slavic
Arm.: Armenian O.E.: Old English
aor.: aorist O.Ind.: Old Indian
aux.: auxiliary O.Ir.: Old Irish
Av: Avestan O.H.G.: Old High German
BSl.: Balto-Slavic O.Hitt.: Old Hittite
CA: Common Anatolian O.Lat.: Archaic Latin
Cel.: Celtic O.Lith.: Old Lithuanin
cf.: confer ‘compare, contrast’ O.N.: Old Norse
Cz.: Czech O.Pers.: Old Persian
dat.: dative O.Pruss.: Old Prussian
Du.: Dutch O.Russ.: Old Russian
e.g.: exempli gratia ‘for example’ opt.: optative
Eng.: English Osc.: Oscan
esp.: especially OSV: object-subject-verb order
f.: feminine OV: object-verb order
fem.: feminine perf.: perfect
gen.: genitive PAn: Proto-Anatolian
Gaul.: Gaulish PGmc.: Pre-Proto-Germanic
Gk.: Greek PII: Proto-Indo-Iranian
Gmc.: Proto-Germanic PGk: Proto-Greek
Goth.: Gothic Phryg: Phrygian
Hitt.: Hittite PIE: Proto-Indo-European
Hom.: Homeric PIH: Proto-Indo-Hittite
IE: Indo-European pl.: plural
IED: Late Indo-European dialects pres.: present
imp.: imperative pron.: pronoun
imperf.: imperfect Ptc.: particle
Ind.-Ira.: Indo-Iranian Russ.: Russian
ins.: instrumental sg.: singular
int.: interrogative Skt.: Sanskrit
Ita.: Italic Sla.: Slavic
Lat.: Latin SOV: subject-object-verb order
LIE: Late Indo-European subj.: subjunctive
Lith.: Lithuanian SVO: subject-verb-object order
Ltv.: Latvian Toch.: Tocharian
loc.: locative Umb.: Umbrian
Luw./Luv.: Luvian Ved.: Vedic
Lyc.: Lycian v.i.: vide infra ‘see below’
m.: masculine VO: verb-object order

13
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

masc.: masculine voc.: vocative

M.H.G.: Middle High German VP: verb phrase
mid.: middle-passive voice v.s.: vide supra ‘see above’
MIE: Modern Indo-European VSO: verb-subject-object order
Myc.: Mycenaean 1st: first person
n.: neuter 2nd: second person
neu.: neuter 3rd: third person
nom.: nominative
B. SYMBOLS
* denotes a reconstructed form, not preserved in any written documents
** denotes a reconstructed form through internal reconstruction
< “comes from” or “is derived from”
→ “turns into” or “becomes”
- indicates morpheme boundary, or separates off that part of a word that
the reader should focus on
() encloses part of a word that is not relevant to the discussion, or that is
an optional part
∅ “zero desinence” or “zero-grade”
˟ denotes a wrong formation
C. SPELLING CONVENTIONS
All linguistic forms are written in italics. The only exceptions are reconstructed
IED forms, that are given in boldface; and in italics if morphemes or dialectal
forms (from PII, PGk, or from East or West European). We use a non-phonetic
writing for IEDs, following the conventions in Writing System (see below).
When representing word schemes:
C = consonant V = vowel
R = resonant (r, l, m, n) V̄ = long vowel
T = dental I = i, u
K = occlusive ° = epenthetic or auxiliary vowel
J = glide (j, w) (conventionally, the symbol ° under the vocalic
resonants is placed before it in these cases)
H = any laryngeal or
merged laryngeal # = syllabic limit

Citation: parenthetical referencing of author-date is used for frequently cited

books (referenced in the Bibliography), and author-title for articles and other books.

14
 Preface

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I owe special and personal gratitude to my best friend and now fiancée Mayte,
whose many lovely qualities do not include knowledge of or an interest in historical
linguistics. But without her this never would have been written.
I have been extremely fortunate to benefit from Fernando López-Menchero’s
interest and from his innumerable contributions, revisions, and corrections.
Without his deep knowledge of Ancient Greek and Latin, as well as his interest in
the most recent research in IE studies, this grammar would have been unthinkable.
I have received the invaluable support of many colleagues and friends from the
University of Extremadura (UEx), since we began publishing this book half a decade
ago. The University has been crucial to this enterprise: first in 2005 when prof.
Antonio Muñoz PhD, Vice-Dean of the Faculty of Library Science, expert in Business
Information, as well as other signatories – doctors in Economics and English
Philology –, supported this language revival project before the competition
committee and afterwards; in 2006, when representatives of the Dean’s office, of
the Regional Government of Extremadura, and of the Mayor’s office of Caceres,
recognised our work awarding our project a prize in the “Entrepreneurship
Competition in Imagination Society”, organising and subsidising a business trip to
Barcelona’s most innovative projects; and in 2007, when we received the
unconditional support of the Department of Classical Antiquity of the UEx.
Over the years I have also received feed-back from informed end-users, as well as
from friends and members of the Indo-European Language Association, who were
in the best position to judge such matters as the intelligibility and consistency of the
whole. I am also indebted to Manuel Romero from Imcrea Diseño Editorial, for his
help with the design and editorial management of the first printed edition.
The influence of the work of many recent scholars is evident on these pages. Those
who are most often cited include (in alphabetical order): D.Q. Adams, F.R. Adrados
David Anthony, R.S.P. Beekes, Emile Benveniste, Alberto Bernabé, Thomas Burrow,
George Cardona, James Clackson, B.W. Fortson, Matthias Fritz, T.V. Gamkrelidze,
Marija Gimbutas, Eric Hamp, V.V. Ivanov, Jay Jasanoff, Paul Kiparsky, Alwin
Kloekhorst, F.H.H. Kortlandt, Jerzy Kuryłowicz, W.P. Lehmann, J.P. Mallory,
Manfred Mayrhofer, Wolfgang Meid, Michael Meier-Brügger, Torsten Meissner,
Craig Melchert, Julia Mendoza, Anna Morpurgo Davies, Norbert Oettinger, Edgar
Polomé, C.J. Ruijgh, Paolo Ramat, Donald Ringe, Helmut Rix, A.L. Sihler, Sergei
Starostin, J.L. Szemerényi, Francisco Villar, Calvert Watkins, M.L. West.

15
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

CONSIDERATIONS OF METHOD
This work is intended for language learners, and is not conceived as a defence of
personal research. Excerpts of texts from many different sources have been copied
literally, especially regarding controversial or untreated aspects. We feel that,
whereas the field of Indo-European studies is indeed mature, and knowledge is out
there to be grasped, we lack a comprehensive summary of the available consensual
theories, scattered over innumerable specialised personal books and articles.
We must begin this work by clearly exposing our intended working method in
selecting and summing up the current available theories: it is basically, as it is
commonly accepted today for PIE reconstruction, the comparative method, with the
help of internal reconstruction.
NOTE. Adrados–Bernabé–Mendoza (1995-1998): “We think (…) that a linguist should
follow, to establish relations among languages, linguistic methods. If then the results are
coincident, or compatible, or might be perfected with those obtained by archaeologists, so
much the better. But a mixed method creates all types of chain mistakes and arbitrary results.
We have seen that many times. And a purely archaeological method like the one supported
lately by Renfrew 1987 or, in certain moments, the same Gimbutas 1985, clashes with the
results of Linguistics.
The method has to rely on [the comparative method and internal reconstruction]. We have
already expressed our mistrust in the results based on typological comparisons with remote
languages (glottalic theory, ergative, etc.). Now they are more frequent in books like
Gamkelidze-Ivanov 1994-1995.
And fundamentally lexical comparisons should not be the first argument in comparisons,
either. We do not doubt their interest in certain moments, e.g. to illuminate the history of
Germanic in relation with Finnish. And they could have interest in different comparisons:
with Uralo-Altaic languages, Semitic, Caucasic, Summerian, etc.”
The guidelines that should be followed, as summarised by Beekes (1995):
1. “See what information is generated by internal reconstruction.
2. Collect all material that is relevant to the problem.
3. Try to look at the problem in the widest possible context, thus in relation to
everything else that may be connected with it. (…)
4. Assume that corresponding forms, that is to say, forms whose meaning
(probably) and whose structures (probably) seem to be alike, all derive from
one common ancestor.
5. The question of how deviant forms should be evaluated is a difficult one to
answer. When such a form can be seen as an innovation within a particular
language (or group of languages), the solution is that the form in question is

16
 Preface

young and as such cannot be important for the reconstruction of the original
form. Whenever a deviant form resists explanation it becomes necessary to
consider the possibility that the very form in question may be one that
preserves the original. (…)
6. For every solution the assumed (new) sound-laws must be phonetically
probable, and the analogies must be plausible.
7. The reconstructed system must be probable (typological probability). If one
should reconstruct a system which is found nowhere else in any of the known
languages, there will always be, to say the least, reasons for doubt. On the other
hand, every language is unique, and there is thus always the possibility that
something entirely unknown must be reconstructed.”
There are two main aspects of the comparative method as is usually applied that
strikes the ‘pure scientific’ reader, though, always obsessed with adopting a
conservative approach to research, in the sense of security or reliability. We shall
take words from Claude Bernard’s major discourse on scientific method, An
Introduction to the Study of Experimental Medicine (1865), to illustrate our point:
1. Authority vs. Observation. It is through observation that science is carried
forward — not through uncritically accepting the authority of academic or scholastic
sources. Observable reality is our only authority. “When we meet a fact which
contradicts a prevailing theory, we must accept the fact and abandon the theory,
even when the theory is supported by great names and generally accepted”.
NOTE. Authority is certainly a commonly used, strong and generally sound basis to keep
working on comparative grammar, though, because it this is a field based on ‘pyramidal’
reasoning and not experimental research. But authority should be questioned whenever it is
needed. Authority – be it the view of the majority, or the opinion of a renowned linguist or
linguistic school – do not mean anything, and ideas are not to be respected because of who
supports (or supported) them.
2. Verification and Disproof. “Theories are only hypotheses, verified by more or
less numerous facts. Those verified by the most facts are the best, but even then they
are never final, never to be absolutely believed”. What is rationally true is the only
authority.
On hypothesis testing in science, decisions are usually made using a statistical
null-hypothesis test approach. Regarding linguistics and its comparative method,
sometimes authority is placed as null hypothesis or H0 (as in many non-
experimental sciences), while counter-arguments must take the H1 position, and are
therefore at disadvantage against the authority view.

17
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

If two theories show a strong argument against the basic H0 (“nothing

demonstrated”), and are therefore accepted as alternative explanations for an
observed fact, then the most reasonable one must be selected as the new H0, on the
grounds of the lex parsimoniae (or the so-called Ockham’s razor), whereby H0
should be the competing hypothesis that makes the fewest new assumptions, when
the hypotheses are equal in other respects (e.g. both sufficiently explain available
data in the first place).
NOTE. The principle is often incorrectly summarised as “the simplest explanation is most
likely the correct one”. This summary is misleading, however, since the principle is actually
focussed on shifting the burden of proof in discussions. That is, the Razor is a principle that
suggests we should tend towards simpler theories until we can trade some simplicity for
increased explanatory power. Contrary to the popular summary, the simplest available
theory is sometimes a less accurate explanation. Philosophers also add that the exact
meaning of “simplest” can be nuanced in the first place.
As an example of the applicability of the scientific method, we will take two
difficult aspects of PIE reconstructions: the series of velars and the loss of
laryngeals.
The problem with these particular reconstructions might be summarised by the
words found in Clackson (2007): “It is often a fault of Indo-Europeanists to over-
reconstruct, and to explain every development of the daughter languages through
reconstruction of a richer system in the parent language.”

18
 Preface

THE THREE-DORSAL THEORY

PIE phonetic reconstruction is tied to the past: acceptance of three series of velars
in PIE is still widespread today. We followed the reconstruction of ‘palatovelars’,
according to general authority and convention, but we have changed minds since
the first edition of this grammar.
Direct comparison in early IE studies, informed by the centum-satem isogloss,
yielded the reconstruction of three rows of dorsal consonants in Late Indo-
European by Bezzenberger (Die indogermanischer Gutturalreihen, 1890), a theory
which became classic after Brugmann included it in the 2nd Edition of his Grundriss.
It was based on vocabulary comparison: so e.g. from PIE *km̥tóm ‘hundred’, there
are so-called satem (cf. O.Ind. śatám, Av. satəm, Lith. šimtas, O.C.S. sto) and
centum languages (cf. Gk. -katón, Lat. centum, Goth. hund, O.Ir. cet).
The palatovelars *kj, *gj, and *gjh were supposedly [k]- or [g]-like sounds which
underwent a characteristic phonetic change in the satemised languages – three
original “velar rows” had then become two in all Indo-European dialects attested.
After that original belief, then, the centum group of languages merged the
palatovelars *kj, *gj, and *gjh with the plain velars *k, *g, and *gh, while the satem
group of languages merged the labiovelars *kw, *gw, and *gwh with the plain velars
*k,*g, and *gh.
The reasoning for reconstructing three series was very simple: an easy and
straightforward solution for the parent PIE language must be that it had all three
rows found in the proto-languages, which would have merged into two rows
depending on their dialectal (centum vs. satem) situation – even if no single IE
dialect shows three series of velars. Also, for a long time this division was identified
with an old dialectal division within IE, especially because both groups appeared
not to overlap geographically: the centum branches were to the west of satem
languages. Such an initial answer should be considered unsound today, at least as a
starting-point to obtain a better explanation for this ‘phonological puzzle’
(Bernabé).
Many Indo-Europeanists still keep a distinction of three distinct series of velars
for Late Indo-European (and also for Indo-Hittite), although research tend to show
that the palatovelar series were a late phonetic development of certain satem
dialects, later extended to others. This belief was originally formulated by Antoine
Meillet (De quelques difficulties de la théorie des gutturals indoeuropéennes, 1893),
and has been followed by linguists like Hirt (Zur Lösung der Gutturalfrage im

19
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

Indogermanischen, 1899; Indogermanische Grammatik, BD III, Das Nomen

1927), Lehmann (Proto-Indo-European Phonology, 1952), Georgiev (Introduzione
allo studio delle lingue indoeuropee, 1966), Bernabé (“Aportaciones al studio
fonológico de las guturales indoeuropeas”, Em. 39, 1971), Steensland (Die
Distribution der urindogermanischen sogenannten Guttrale, 1973), Miller (“Pure
velars and palatals in Indo-European: a rejoinder to Magnusson”, Linguistics 178,
1976), Allen (“The PIE velar series: Neogrammarian and other solutions in the
light of attested parallels”, TPhS, 1978), Kortlandt (“H2 and oH2”, LPosn, 1980),
Shields (“A new look at the centum/satem Isogloss”, KZ 95, 1981), etc.
NOTE. There is a general trend to reconstruct labiovelars and plain velars, so that the
hypothesis of two series of velars is usually identified with this theory. Among those who
support two series of velars there is, however, a minority who consider the labiovelars a
secondary development from the pure velars, and reconstruct only velars and palatovelars
(Kuryłowicz), already criticised by Bernabé, Steensland, Miller and Allen. Still less
acceptance had the proposal to reconstruct only a labiovelar and a palatal series
(Magnusson).
Arguments in favour of only two series of velars include:
1. In most circumstances palatovelars appear to be allophones resulting from the
neutralisation of the other two series in particular phonetic circumstances. Their
dialectal articulation was probably constrained, either to an especial phonetic
environment (as Romance evolution of Latin k before e and i), either to the analogy
of alternating phonetic forms.
NOTE. However, it is difficult to pinpoint exactly what the circumstances of the allophony
are, although it is generally accepted that neutralisation occurred after s and u, and often
before r or a; also apparently before m and n in some Baltic dialects. The original allophonic
distinction was disturbed when the labiovelars were merged with the plain velars. This
produced a new phonemic distinction between palatal and plain velars, with an
unpredictable alternation between palatal and plain in related forms of some roots (those
from original plain velars) but not others (those from original labiovelars). Subsequent
analogical processes generalised either the plain or palatal consonant in all forms of a
particular root. Those roots where the plain consonant was generalised are those
traditionally reconstructed as having plain velars in the parent language, in contrast to
palatovelars.
2. The reconstructed palatovelars and plain velars appear mostly in
complementary distributions, what supports their explanation as allophones of the
same phonemes. Meillet (Introduction à l’étude comparative des langues indo-
européennes, 1903) established the contexts in which there are only velars: before
a, r, and after s, u; while Georgiev (1966) clarified that the palatalisation of velars

20
 Preface

had been produced before e, i, j, and before liquid or nasal or w + e, i, offering

statistical data supporting his conclusions. The presence of palatalised velar before
o is then produced because of analogy with roots in which (due to the ablaut) the
velar phoneme is found before e and o, so the alternation *kje/*ko would be levelled
as *kje/*kjo.
3. There is residual evidence of various sorts in satem languages of a former
distinction between velar and labiovelar consonants:
• In Sanskrit and Balto-Slavic, in some environments, resonants become iR
after plain velars but uR after labiovelars.
• In Armenian, some linguists assert that kw is distinguishable from k before
front vowels.
• In Albanian, some linguists assert that kw and gw are distinguishable from k
and g before front vowels.
NOTE. This evidence shows that the labiovelar series was distinct from the plain velar
series in LIE, and could not have been a secondary development in the centum languages.
However, it says nothing about the palatovelar vs. plain velar series. When this debate
initially arose, the concept of a phoneme and its historical emergence was not clearly
understood, however, and as a result it was often claimed (and sometimes is still claimed)
that evidence of three-way velar distinction in the history of a particular IE language
indicates that this distinction must be reconstructed for the parent language. This is
theoretically unsound, as it overlooks the possibility of a secondary origin for a distinction.
4. The palatovelar hypothesis would support an evolution kj → k of centum dialects,
i.e. a move of palatovelars to back consonants, what is clearly against the general
tendency of velars to move forward its articulation and palatalise in these
environments. A trend of this kind is unparallelled and therefore typologically a
priori unlikely (although not impossible), and needs that other assumptions be
made.
5. The plain velar series is statistically rarer than the other two in a PIE lexicon
reconstructed with three series; it appears in words entirely absent from affixes, and
most of them are of a phonetic shape that could have inhibited palatalisation.
NOTE. Common examples are:
o *yug-óm ‘yoke’: Hitt. iukan, Gk. zdugón, Skt. yugá-, Lat. iugum, O.C.S. igo, Goth. juk.
o *ghosti- ‘guest, stranger’: Lat. hostis, Goth. gasts, O.C.S. gostĭ.
“The paradigm of the word for ‘yoke’ could have shown a palatalizing environment only in
the vocative *yug-e, which is unlikely ever to have been in common usage, and the word for
‘stranger’ ghosti- only ever appears with the vocalism o”. (Clackson 2007).

21
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

6. Alternations between plain velars and palatals are common in a number of roots
across different satem languages, where the same root appears with a palatal in
some languages but a plain velar in others.
NOTE. This is consistent with the analogical generalisation of one or another consonant in
an originally alternating paradigm, but difficult to explain otherwise:
o *ak-/ok- ‘sharp’, cf. Lith. akúotas, O.C.S. ostrŭ, O.Ind. asrís, Arm. aseln, but Lith.
asrùs.
o *akmon- ‘stone’, cf. Lith. akmuõ, O.C.S. kamy, O.Ind. áśma, but Lith. âsmens.
o *keu- ‘shine’, cf. Lith. kiáune, Russ. kuna, O.Ind. svas, Arm. sukh.
o *bhleg- ‘shine’, cf. O.Ind. bhárgas, Lith. balgans, O.C.S. blagŭ, but Ltv. blâzt.
o *gherdh- ‘enclose’, O.Ind. gṛhá, Av. gərəda, Lith. gardas, O.C.S. gradu, Lith. zardas,
Ltv. zârdas.
o *swekros ‘father-in-law’, cf. O.Sla. svekry, O.Ind. śvaśru.
o *peku- ‘stock animal’; cf. O.Lith. pẽkus, Skt. paśu-, Av. pasu-.
o *kleus- ‘hear’; cf. Skt. śrus, O.C.S. slušatĭ, Lith. kláusiu.
A rather weak argument in favour of palatovelars rejecting these finds is found in Clackson
(2007): “Such forms could be taken to reflect the fact that Baltic is geographically peripheral
to the satem languages and consequently did not participate in the palatalization to the same
degree as other languages”.
7. There are different pairs of satemised and non-satemised velars found within
the same language.

NOTE. The old argument proposed by Brugmann (and later copied by many dictionaries)
about “centum loans” is not tenable today. For more on this, see Szemerény (1978, review
from Adrados–Bernabé–Mendoza 1995-1998), Mayrhofer (“Das Guttrualproblem un das
indogermanische Wort für Hase”, Studien zu indogermanische Grundsprache, 1952),
Bernabé (1971). Examples include:
o *selg- ‘throw’, cf. O.Ind. sṛjáti, sargas
o *kau/keu- ‘shout’, cf. Lith. kaukti, O.C.S. kujati, Russ. sova (as Gk. kauax); O.Ind.
kauti, suka-.
o *kleu- ‘hear’, Lith. klausýti, slove, O.C.S. slovo; O.Ind. karnas, sruti, srósati, śrnóti,
sravas.
o *leuk-, O.Ind. rokás, ruśant-.
8. The number and periods of satemisation trends reconstructed for the different
branches are not coincident.
NOTE. So for example Old Indian shows two stages,
o PIE *k → O.Ind. s

22
 Preface

o PIE *kwe, *kwi → O.Ind. ke, ki; PIE *ske, *ski > O.Ind. c (cf. cim, candra, etc.)
In Slavic, three stages are found,
o PIE *k→s
o PIE *kwe, *kwi→č (čto, čelobek)
o PIE *kwoi→*koi→*ke gives ts (as Sla. tsená)
9. In most attested languages which present aspirates as a result of the so-called
palatovelars, the palatalisation of other phonemes is also attested (e.g.
palatalisation of labiovelars before e, i), what may indicate that there is an old trend
to palatalise all possible sounds, of which the palatalisation of velars is the oldest
attested result.
NOTE. It is generally believed that satemisation could have started as a late dialectal ‘wave’,
which eventually affected almost all PIE dialectal groups. The origin is probably to be found
in velars followed by e, i, even though alternating forms like *gen/gon caused natural
analogical corrections within each dialect, which obscures still more the original situation.
Thus, non-satemised forms in so-called satem languages would be non-satemised remains
of the original situation, just as Spanish has feliz and not ˟heliz, or fácil and not ˟hácil, or
French facile and nature, and not ˟fêle or ˟nûre as one should expect from its phonetic
evolution.
10. The existence of satem languages like Armenian in the Balkans, a centum
territory, and the presence of Tocharian, a centum dialect, in Central Asia, being
probably a northern IE dialect.
NOTE. The traditional explanation of a three-way dorsal split requires that all centum
languages share a common innovation that eliminated the palatovelar series, due to the a
priori unlikely move of palatovelars to back consonants (see above). Unlike for the satem
languages, however, there is no evidence of any areal connection among the centum
languages, and in fact there is evidence against such a connection – the centum languages
are geographically noncontiguous. Furthermore, if such an areal innovation happened, we
would expect to see some dialect differences in its implementation (cf. the above differences
between Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian), and residual evidence of a distinct palatalised
series. In fact, however, neither type of evidence exists, suggesting that there was never a
palatovelar series in the centum languages. (Evidence does exist for a distinct labiovelar
series in the satem languages, though; see above.)
11. A system of two gutturals, velars and labiovelars, is a linguistic anomaly,
isolated in the IE occlusive subsystem – there are no parallel oppositions bw-b, pw-
p, tw-t, dw-d, etc. Only one feature, their pronunciation with an accompanying
rounding of the lips, helps distinguish them from each other. Such a system has been
attested in some older IE languages. A system of three gutturals – palatovelars,

23
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

velars and labiovelars –, with a threefold distinction isolated in the occlusive system,
is still less likely.
NOTE. In the two-dorsal system, labiovelars turn velars before -u, and there are some
neutralisation positions which help identify labiovelars and velars; also, in some contexts
(e.g. before -i, -e) velars tend to move forward its articulation and eventually palatalise. Both
trends led eventually to centum and satem dialectalisation.
Those who support the model of the threefold distinction in PIE cite evidence from
Albanian (Pedersen) and Armenian (Pisani), that they seem to treat plain velars
differently from the labiovelars in at least some circumstances, as well as the fact
that Luwian could have had distinct reflexes of all three series.
NOTE 1. It is disputed whether Albanian shows remains of two or three series (cf. Ölberg
“Zwei oder drei Gutturaldreihen? Vom Albanischen aus gesehen” Scritti…Bonfante 1976;
Kortlandt 1980; Pänzer “Ist das Französische eine Satem-Sprache? Zu den Palatalisierung
im Ur-Indogermanischen und in den indogermanischen Einzelsprachen”, Festschrift für J.
Hübschmidt, 1982), although the fact that only the worst and one of the most recently
attested (and neither isolated nor remote) IE dialect could be the only one to show some
remains of the oldest phonetic system is indeed very unlikely. Clackson (2007), supporting
the three series: “Albanian and Armenian are sometimes brought forward as examples of the
maintenance of three separate dorsal series. However, Albanian and Armenian are both
satem languages, and, since the *kj series has been palatalised in both, the existence of three
separate series need not disprove the two-dorsal theory for PIE; they might merely show a
failure to merge the unpalatalised velars with the original labio-velars.”
NOTE 2. Supporters of the palatovelars cite evidence from Luwian, an Anatolian language,
which supposedly shows a three-way velar distinction *kj→z (probably [ts]); *k→k; *kw→ku
(probably [kw]), as defended by Melchert (“Reflexes of *h3 in Anatolian”, Sprache 38 1987).
So, the strongest argument in favour of the traditional three-way system is that the
distinction supposedly derived from Luwian findings must be reconstructed for the parent
language. However, the underlying evidence “hinges upon especially difficult or vague or
otherwise dubious etymologies” (see Sihler 1995); and, even if those findings are supported
by other evidence in the future, it is obvious that Luwian might also have been in contact
with satemisation trends of other Late IE dialects, that it might have developed its own
satemisation trend, or that maybe the whole system was remade within the Anatolian branch.
Clackson (2007), supporting the three series, states: “This is strong independent evidence
for three separate dorsal series, but the number of examples in support of the change is small,
and we still have a far from perfect understanding of many aspects of Anatolian historical
phonology.”
Also, one of the most difficult problems which subsists in the interpretation of the
satemisation as a phonetic wave is that, even though in most cases the variation
*kj/k may be attributed either to a phonetic environment or to the analogy of
alternating apophonic forms, there are some cases in which neither one nor the

24
 Preface

other may be applied, i.e. it is possible to find words with velars in the same
environments as words with palatals.
NOTE. Compare for example *okjtō(u), eight, which presents k before an occlusive in a
form which shows no change (to suppose a syncope of an older *okjitō, as does Szemerényi,
is an explanation ad hoc). Other examples in which the palatalisation cannot be explained by
the next phoneme nor by analogy are *swekru- ‘husband’s mother’, *akmōn ‘stone’, *peku
‘cattle’, which are among those not shared by all satem languages. Such unexplained
exceptions, however, are not sufficient to consider the existence of a third row of ‘later
palatalised’ velars (see Bernabé 1971; Cheng & Wang “Sound change: actuation and
implementation”, Lg. 51, 1975), although there are still scholars who come back to the
support of the hypothesis of three velars. So e.g. Tischler 1990 (reviewed in Meier-Brügger
2003): “The centum-satem isogloss is not to be equated with a division of Indo-European,
but rather represents simply one isogloss among many…examples of ‘centum-like aspects’ in
satem languages and of ‘satem-like aspects’ in centum languages that may be evaluated as
relics of the original three-part plosive system, which otherwise was reduced every-where to
a two-part system.”
Newer trends to support the old assumptions include e.g. Huld (1997, reviewed in Clackson
2007), in which the old palatal *kj is reconstructed as a true velar, and *k as a uvular stop, so
that the problem of the a priori unlikely and unparallelled merger of palatal with velar in
centum languages is theoretically solved.
As it is clear from the development of the dorsal reconstruction, the theory that
made the fewest assumptions was that an original Proto-Indo-European had two
series of velars. These facts should have therefore shifted the burden of proof,
already by the time Meillet (1893) rejected the proposal of three series; but the
authority of Neogrammarians and well-established works of the last century, as well
as traditional conventions, probably weighted (and still weight) more than reasons.
NOTE. More than half century ago we had already a similar opinion on the most reasonable
reconstruction, that still today is not followed, as American Sanskritist Burrow (1955) shows:
“The difficulty that arises from postulating a third series in the parent language, is that no
more than two series (…) are found in any of the existing languages. In view of this it is
exceedingly doubtful whether three distinct series existed in Indo-European. The
assumption of the third series has been a convenience for the theoreticians, but it is unlikely
to correspond to historical fact. Furthermore, on examination, this assumption does not turn
out to be as convenient as would be wished. While it accounts in a way for correspondences
like the above which otherwise would appear irregular, it still leaves over a considerable
number of forms in the satem-languages which do not fit into the framework (…) Examples
of this kind are particularly common in the Balto-Slavonic languages (…). Clearly a theory
which leaves almost as many irregularities as it clears away is not very soundly established,
and since these cases have to be explained as examples of dialect mixture in early Indo-
European, it would appear simplest to apply the same theory to the rest. The case for this is

25
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

particularly strong when we remember that when false etymologies are removed, when
allowance is made for suffix alternation, and when the possibility of loss of labialization in
the vicinity of the vowel u is considered (e.g. kravíṣ-, ugrá-), not many examples remain for
the foundation of the theory.”
Of course, we cannot (and we will probably never) actually know if there were two
or three series of velars in LIE, or PIH, and because of that the comparative method
should be preferred over gut intuition, historical authority, or convention, obstacles
to the progress in a dynamic field like IE studies.
As Adrados (2005) puts it with bitterness: “Indo-Europeanists keep working on a unitary
and flat PIE, that of Brugmann’s reconstruction. A reconstruction prior to the decipherment
of Hittite and the study of Anatolian! This is but other proof of the terrible conservatism that
has seized the scientific discipline that is or must be Indo-European linguistics: it moves
forward in the study of individual languages, but the general theory is paralised”.

26
 Preface

THE LOSS OF LARYNGEALS

Today, the reconstruction of consonantal sounds to explain what was
reconstructed before as uncertain vocalic schwa indogermanicum or schwa
primum is firmly accepted in IE studies in general, and there is a general agreement
on where laryngeals should be reconstructed. Even the number and quality of those
laryngeals is today a field of common agreement, although alternative number of
laryngeals and proposals for their actual phonemic value do actually exist.
However, as Clackson (2007) sums up: “Particularly puzzling is the paradox that
laryngeals are lost nearly everywhere, in ways that are strikingly similar, yet
apparently unique to each language branch. We can of course assume some
common developments already within PIE, such as the effect of the laryngeals *h2
and *h3 to change a neighbouring *e to *a or *o, but the actual loss of laryngeals
must be assumed to have taken place separately after the break-up of the parent
language (…) it would have seemed a plausible assumption that the retention of *h2,
and possibly also *h1 and *h3, is an archaism of Anatolian, and the loss of the
laryngeals was made in common by the other languages.”
In the vocalic inventory of current Late Indo-European reconstruction, the
following evolution paradigm is widespread, following Beekes (1995), Meier-
Brügger (2003) and Ringe (2005):
PIH pre-LIE post-LIE NWIE PGk PII PIH pre-LIE post-LIE NWIE PGk PII
*iHC *iHC *ī ī ī ī *Hi *Hi *i i i i
*uHC *uHC *ū ū ū ū *Hu *Hu *u u u u
*oH *oH *ō ō ō ā *Ho *Ho *o o o a
*eh1 *eH *ē ē ē ā *h1e *He *e e e a
*eh2 *aH *ā ā ā ā *h2e *Ha *a a a a
*eh3 *oH *ō ō ō ā *h3e *Ho *o o o a

PIH *Ch1C *Ch2C *Ch3C *h1C- *h2C- *h3C- *VHV *CRHC

pre-LIE *h1° *h2° *h3° *H(H°) *H(H°) *H(H°) *VHV *R°H
post-LIE *ə *ə *ə - - - *VʔV *(°)R°H
NWIE a a a - - - V̄ (°)Rə ʔ
PGk e a o e a o V̄ RV̄
PII i i i - - - V(ʔ)V (R)Vʔ

27
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

NOTE 1. A differentiation between early or pre-LIE and late or post-LIE has to be made.
An auxiliary vowel was firstly inserted in the evolution PIH → pre-LIE in a certain position,
known because it is found in all dialects alike: *Ch1C → *Ch1°C, *Ch2C → *Ch2°C, *Ch3C →
*Ch3°C. By post-LIE we assume a period of a Northern-Southern dialectal division and
Southern dialectal split, in which the whole community remains still in contact, allowing the
spread of innovations like a generalised vocalisation of the auxiliary vowel (during the first
migrations in the Kurgan framework, the assumed end of the LIE community). During that
period, the evolution pre-LIE → post-LIE would have been as follows: *Ch1°C →
*Ch1əC→*CHəC→*CəC. That evolution reached IEDs differently: whereas in South-West IE
(Greek, Armenian, Phrygian, Ancient Macedonian) the pre-LIE laryngeal probably
colourised the vocalic output from *Ch1əC as in the general scheme (into e, a, o), in NWIE
and PII the late LIE *ə from *CəC was assimilated to another vowel: generally to a in NWIE,
and to i in PII. Word-initially, only South-West IE dialects appear to have had an output
*H°→ *Hə→ e, a, o, while the other dialects lost them *H→ ∅.
NOTE 2. The following developments should also be added:
- In South-West IE there are no cases of known *Hj- → *Vj-. It has been assumed that this
group produced in Greek a z.
- It seems that some evidence of word-initial laryngeals comes from Indo-Iranian, where
some compound words show lengthening of the final vowel before a root presumed to
have had an initial laryngeal.
- The *-ih2 group in auslaut had an alternative form *-j°h2, LIE *-ī/-jə, which could produce
IED -ī, -ja (alternating forms are found even within the same dialect).
- Apparently a reflect of consonantal laryngeals is found between nonhigh vowels as
hiatuses (or glottal stops) in the oldest Indo-Iranian languages – Vedic Sanskrit and Old
Avestan –, as well as in Homeric Greek (Lindeman Introduction to the ‘Laryngeal
Theory’, 1987). For a discussion on its remains in Proto-Germanic, see Connolly
(“‘Grammatischer Wechsel’ and the laryngeal theory”, IF 85 1980).
- Contentious is also the so-called Osthoff’s Law (which affected all IE branches but for
Tocharian and Indo-Iranian), which possibly shows a general trend of post-LIE date.
- When *H is in a post-plosive, prevocalic position, the consonantal nature of the laryngeal
values is further shown *CHVC → *ChVC; that is more frequent in PII, cf. *pl̥th2ú- → Ved.
prt̥ hú-; it appears also in the perfect endings, cf. Gk. oistha.
- The group *CR̥HC is explained differently for the individual dialects without a general
paradigm; so e.g. Beekes (1995) or Meier-Brügger (2003) distinguish the different
dialectal outputs as: Tocharian (*r̥HC→*r°HC), Germanic (*r̥H→*r̥) and to some extent
Balto-Slavic (distinction by accentuation), Italo-Celtic (*r̥H→*r°H), while in Greek the
laryngeal determined the vowel: e.g. *r̥h1→*r̥°h1→*r̥eH.
There are multiple examples which do not fit in any dialectal scheme, though; changes of
outputs from PIH reconstructed forms with resonants are found even within the same
dialects. The explanation in Adrados–Bernabé–Mendoza (1995-1998) is probably nearer
to the actual situation, in going back to the pronunciation of the common (pre-LIE)

28
 Preface

group: “the different solutions in this case depend solely on two factors: a) if there are
one or two auxiliary vowels to facilitate the pronunciation of this group; b) the place
where they appear.” So e.g. a group *CR̥HC could be pronounced in LIE with one vowel
(*CR°HC or *C°RHC) or with two (*C°R°HC, *C°RH°C, or *CR°H°C). That solution
accounts for all LIE variants found in the different branches, and within them.
- The laryngeal of *RHC- in anlaut was vocalised in most languages, while the resonant was
consonantal (*R̥HC- became *RVC-).
- In the group *CR̥HV, a vowel generally appears before the resonant and the laryngeal
disappears; that vowel is usually coincident with the vocalic output that a resonant alone
would usually give in the different dialects, so it can be assumed that generally
*CR̥HV→C(V)R̥V, although exceptions can indeed be found. A common example of
parallel treatment within the same dialect is Greek pros/paros < *pros/p°ros.
- Accounting for some irregularities in the outcome of laryngeals (especially with *-h2, but
not limited to it) is the so-called “Saussure effect”, whereby LIE dialects do not show an
usual reflection of the inherited sequences #HRo- and -oRHC-. According to Nussbaum
(Sound law and analogy: papers in honor of Robert S.P. Beekes on the occasion of his
60th birthday, Alexander Lubotsky, 1997), this effect “reflects something that happened,
or failed to happen, already in the proto-language”.
Hence, for the moment, we could assume that a South-East and a South-West IE dialects
were already separated, but still closely related through a common (Northern) IE core,
because the loss (or, more exactly, the vocalic evolution) of laryngeals of Northern IE did in
fact reach Graeco-Aryan dialects similarly and in a complementary distribution. That is
supported by modern linguistic Northern-Southern separation model (v.i. §§1.3, 1.4, 1.7):
“(…) today it is thought that most innovations of Greek took place outside Greece; no doubt,
within the Indo-Greek group, but in a moment in which certain eastern isoglosses didn’t
reach it.” Adrados–Bernabé–Mendoza (1995-1998).
Apart from those fictions or artifices that help linguists keep on with their work on
individual dialects from a secure starting point (conventional PIH phonetics), there
is no reason to doubt that the most (scientifically) conservative starting point for
PIE evolution is that LIE had lost most laryngeals but for one merged *H – of the
“Disintegrating Indo-European” of Bomhard (Toward Proto-Nostratic: A New
Approach to the Comparison of Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Afroasiatic,
1984) – into the known timeline and groupings, and that a late post-LIE vocalisation
of interconsonantal *H into *Hə and later *ə did eventually substitute the original
forms, albeit at a different pace, arriving probably somehow late and incompletely
to the earliest dialects to split up, which completed independently the laryngeal loss.
Some individual finds seem to support a different treatment of laryngeals in
certain dialects and environments, though.

29
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

NOTE. Examples are the contentious Cogwill’s Law (“such shortening is fairly common
cross-linguistically, and the IE examples may have each arisen independently”, Fortson
2004), or other peculiar sound changes recently found in Latin and Balto-Slavic, all of them
attested in late IE dialects that had already undergone different vocalic evolutions.
Meier-Brügger (2003) mentions 3 non-Anatolian testimonies of laryngeals:
1) Indo-Iranian: “the Vedic phrase devyètu, i.e. devì etu – υ is best understandable if we
suppose that dev ‘goddess’ still contained the laryngeal form *dewíH (with *-iH<*-ih2)
at the time of the formulation fo the verse in question. In the phase *-íH it was possible
for the laryngeal simply to disappear before a vowel”. Other common example used is
̥ iH. It is not justified, though, that it must represent a sort of unwritten laryngeal,
*wrk
and not an effect of it, i.e. a laryngeal hiatus or glottal stop, from older two-word
sandhis that behave as a single compound word, see §2.4.3. Interesting is also that they
are in fact from words alternating in pre-LIE *-iH/*-j°H (or post-LIE *-ī/*-jə) which
according to Fortson (2004) reflect different syllabification in Indo-Iranian vs. Greek
and Tocharian, whilst “[t]he source of the difference is not fully understood”. In line
with this problem is that the expected case of *-aH stems is missing, what makes it less
likely that Indo-Iranian examples come from a common hypothetic PII stage in which
a word-final *-H had not still disappeared, and more likely that it was a frozen remain
(probably of a glottal stop) in certain formal expressions. In fact, it has long been
recognised that the treatment of word-final laryngeals shows a strong tendency to
disappear (so e.g. in Hittite), and most of the time it appears associated with
morphological elements (Adrados–Bernabé–Mendoza 1995-1998). They should then
be considered – like the hiatuses or glottal stops found in Hom. Gk. and Germanic
compositions – probable ancient reminiscences of a frozen formal language.
2) The sandhi variant in *-aH is found, according to Meier-Brügger (2003) and Ringe
(2006), in Greek and Old Church Slavonic. In both “clear traces are missing that would
confirm a PIE ablaut with full grade *-eh2- and zero grade *-h2- (…) That is why it
appears as if the differentiation between the nominative and vocative singular in this
case could be traced to sandhi-influenced double forms that were common at a time
when the stems were still composed of *-ah2, and the contraction *-ah2- >*-ā- had not
yet occurred”. Szemerény (1999) among others already rejected it: “The shortening of
the original IE ending -ā to -ă is regular, as the voc., if used at the beginning of a
sentence or alone, was accented on the first syllable but was otherwise enclitic and
unaccented; a derivation from -ah with the assumption of a prevocalic sandhi variant
in -a fails therefore to explain the shortening.”
3) The latest example given by Meier-Brügger is found in the unstable *CRHC model (see
above), which is explained with PIE *gn̥h1-tó- ‘created, born’: so in Vedic jātá- < PII
ģātó- < *ģaHtó- < *gjn̥h1tó-, which would mean that the laryngeal merged after the
evolution LIE *n̥ → PII a. The other irregular dialectal reconstructions shown are easily

30
 Preface

explained following the model of epenthetic vowel plus merged laryngeal (or glottal
stop?) in *gnəh1tó-; cf. for the same intermediate grade PGk gnētó- (< post-LIE
*gneHtó-), pre-NWIE g(°)naʔtó- (<post-LIE *gnəHtó-) into Ita., Cel. *gnātó-, PGmc.
*kunʔda-, Bal.-Sla. *ginətó-. Such dialectal late loss of the merged laryngeal *H (or
glottal stop) is therefore limited to the groups including a sonorant, and the finds
support a vocalisation of LIE *n̥, *m̥ → PII a earlier than the loss of laryngeal (or glottal
stop) in that environment. That same glottal stop is possibly behind the other examples
in Meier-Brügger: O.Av. va.ata-< PII waʔata-, or Ved. *ca-kar-ʔa (the ʔ still preserved
in the period of the activity of Brugmann’s law), or Ved. náus < *naʔus.
In Lubotsky (1997) different outputs are proposed for *CRH groups before certain vowels:
“It is clear that the “short” reflexes are due to laryngeal loss in an unaccented position, but
the chronology of this loss is not easy to determine. If the laryngeal loss had already occurred
in PIIr., we have to assume that PIIr. *CruV subsequently yielded CurvV in Sanskrit. The
major problem we face is that the evidence for the phonetically regular outcome of *CriV and
*CruV in Indo-Iranian is meager and partly conflicting.” Again, the conflict is solved
assuming a late loss of the laryngeal; however, the attestation of remains of glottal stops,
coupled with the auxiliary vowel solution of Adrados–Bernabé–Mendoza (1995-1998) solves
the irregularities without making new assumptions and dialectal sound laws that in turn
need their own further exceptions.
Kortlandt seems to derive the loss of laryngeals from Early Slavic (see below §1.7.1.I.D), a
sister language of West and East Baltic languages, according to his view. Also, on Italo-Celtic
(2007): “If my view is correct, the loss of the laryngeals after a vocalic resonant is posterior
to the shortening of pretonic long vowels in Italic and Celtic. The specific development of the
vocalic liquids, which is posterior to the common shortening of pretonic long vowels, which
is in its turn posterior to the development of ē, ā, ō from short vowel plus laryngeal, supports
the hypothesis of Italo-Celtic linguistic unity.” Hence the problematic environments with
sonorants are explained with a quite late laryngeal loss precisely in those groups.
The most probable assumption then, if some of those peculiar developments are
remnants of previous laryngeals, as it seems, is that the final evolution of the merged
*H was coincident with LIE disintegration, and might have reached its end in the
different early prehistoric communities, while still in contact with each other (in
order to allow for the spread of the common trends); the irregular vocalic changes
would have then arisen from unstable syllables (mainly those which included a
resonant), alternating even within the same branches, and even in the same
phonetic environments without laryngeals (v.i. §2.3).
While there are reasons to support a late evolution of the pre-LIE merged
laryngeal, there seems to be no strong argument for the survival of LIE merged *H
into the later periods of NWIE, PGk or PII dialects, still less into later proto-
languages (as Germanic, Slavic, Indo-Aryan, etc.). However, for some linguists, the

31
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

complete loss of the LIE laryngeal (or even laryngeals) must have happened
independently in each dialectal branch attested; so e.g. Meier-Brügger (2003): “As
a rule, the laryngeals were disposed of only after the Proto-Indo-European era”;
Clackson (2007): “But the current picture of laryngeal reconstruction necessitates
repeated loss of laryngeals in each language branch”.
NOTE. The question is then brought by Clackson into the Maltese and Modern Hebrew
examples, languages isolated from Semitic into an Indo-European environment for
centuries. That is indeed a possible explanation: that all IE branches, after having split up
from the LIE common language, would have become independently isolated, and then kept
in close contact with (or, following the Maltese example, surrounded by) non-IE languages
without laryngeals. Then, every change in all branches could be explained by way of
diachronic and irregular developments of vowel quality. In Clackson’s words: “(…) the
comparative method does not rely on absolute regularity, and the PIE laryngeals may provide
an example of where reconstruction is possible without the assumption of rigid sound-laws.”
Even accepting that typologically both models of (a common, post-LIE vs. an
independent, dialectal) laryngeal loss were equally likely, given that all languages
had lost the merged laryngeal before being attested, all with similar outputs, and
that even the final evolution (laryngeal hiatuses or glottal stops) must have been
shared in an early period – since they are found only in frozen remains in old and
distant dialects –, an early IED loss of laryngeals fits into a coherent timeline within
the known dialectal evolution. With that a priori assumption, we limit the need for
unending ad hoc ‘sound-laws’ for each dialectal difference involving a sonorant,
which would in turn need their own exceptions. Therefore, we dispense with
unnecessary hypotheses, offering the most conservative approach to the problem.

32
 Preface

CONVENTIONS USED IN THIS BOOK

1. We try to keep a consistent nomenclature throughout the book, when referring
to the different reconstructible stages of Proto-Indo-European (PIE). From Pre-
PIH, highly hypothetical stage, only reconstructible through internal
reconstruction, to the most conservative reconstruction of early LIE dialects (IEDs).
We do so by using the following schema of frequent terms and dates:

5000
- 1 Indo-Hittite (PIH) or Middle PIE
3000
BC P
I
4000 E Late Indo-European (LIE) or Late PIE Proto-
- 2 Anato-
2500 lian
BC Northern dialects (N.LIE) Southern dialects (S.LIE) (PAn)

2900 I
- 3
2100 E NWIE S-E IE PGk Proto-I.-I. (PII) CA
BC D

2300
- Pre- Pre- Pre- Mello-
4 Pre- Indo- Anat.
1500 Ita.- Bal.- Toch. Gk. Iran.
Ger. Aryan lang.
BC Cel. Sla.

NOTE. This is just a simplified summary to understand the following sections. The full
actual nomenclature and archaeological dates are discussed in detail in §§1.3, 1.4, and 1.7.
The dates include an archaeological terminus post quem, and a linguistic terminus ante
quem. In such a huge time span we could differentiate between language periods. However,
these (linguistic and archaeological) limits are usually difficult to define, and their
differentiation hardly necessary in this grammar. Similarly, the terms Hittite, Sanskrit,
Ancient Greek, Latin, etc. (as well as modern languages) might refer in the broadest sense to
a time span of over 1,000 years in each case, and they are still considered a single language;
a selection is made of the prestigious dialect and age for each one, though, as it is done in
this grammar, where the prestigious language is Late Indo-European, while phonetics
remains nearer to the middle-late period of IEDs, whose post-laryngeal output is more
certain.
2. The above graphic is intended to show stemmatic, as well as synchronic levels.
The reconstruction of North-West Indo-European is based on secondary materials:
it is a level 3 proto-language, reconstructed on the basis of level 5 proto-languages
(of ca. 1000 BC), i.e. primary Proto-Celtic, Proto-Italic, secondary Proto-Balto-
Slavic (through Proto-Slavic and Proto-Baltic) and secondary Pre-Proto-Germanic
(through internal reconstruction), see §1.7.1.

33
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

NOTE. Coeval level 3 dialects Proto-Greek (from level 5 Mycenaean and level 6 Ancient
Greek primary materials) and Proto-Indo-Iranian (from level 5 Old Indian and level 6
Iranian materials) could be considered reconstructions based on primary as well as
secondary materials. All of them, as well as data from other dialects (Tocharian A and B,
Armenian, Albanian), conform the secondary and tertiary materials used to reconstruct a
level 2 Late Indo-European. Proto-Anatolian is a level 2 internal reconstruction from level 3
Common Anatolian, in turn from level 4 and level 5 primary materials on Anatolian dialects.
Both Late Indo-European and Proto-Anatolian help reconstruct a parent language, Indo-
Hittite, which is then a level 1 language.
Each reconstructed parent level is, indeed, more uncertain and inconsistent than the
previous one, because the older a material is (even primary texts directly attested), the more
uncertain the reconstructed language. And more so because all parent reconstructions are in
turn helpful to refine and improve the reconstruction of daughter and sister proto-languages.
With that scheme in mind, it is logical to consider more consistent and certain the
reconstruction of IEDs, these in turn more than LIE, and this more than PIH.
3. Palatovelars are neither reconstructed for Late Indo-European, nor
(consequently) for Indo-Hittite. While not still a settled question (v.s.
Considerations of Method), we assume that the satem trend began as an areal
dialectal development in South-East Indo-European, and spread later (and
incompletely) through contact zones – e.g. into Pre-Balto-Slavic.
NOTE. Because West and Central European (Italo-Celtic and Germanic) and Proto-Greek
were not affected by that early satemisation trend –although Latin, Greek and Celtic actually
show late independent ‘satemisations’ –, the reconstruction of centum NWIE and PGk, and
satem PII (the aim of this book) should be an agreed solution, no matter what the different
personal or scholarly positions on LIE and PIH might be.
4. We assume an almost fully vocalic – i.e. post-laryngeal – nature of IEDs since
the end of the LIE community (assumed to have happened before ca. 2500 BC,
according to archaeological dates), although not a settled question either (v.s.
Considerations of Method). Whether LIE lost the merged laryngeal *H sooner or
later, etymological roots which include laryngeals will be labelled PIH and follow
the general three-laryngeal convention, while some common LIE vocabulary will be
shown either with pre-LIE merged *H or post-LIE vocalic output *ə (which was
assimilated to NWIE a, PII i), or with the reconstructed post-LIE glottal stop *ʔ.
NOTE. In this grammar we will show the reconstructed phonetics of a post-LIE period,
focussing on NWIE vocalism, while keeping a vocabulary section with a Late Indo-European
reconstruction, respecting NWIE/PII dialectal differences; not included are the different
vocalic outputs of South-West IE, from word-initial and interconsonantal laryngeals.

34
 Preface

WRITING SYSTEM
This table contains common Proto-Indo-European phonemes and their proposed
regular corresponding letters in alphabets and Brahmic alphasyllabaries.

CONSONANTS AND CONSONANTAL SOUNDS

Phoneme Greek Latin Perso-Arab Armenian Cyrillic Nāgarī

[p] Ππ Pp ‫ﭘ ـﭙـ ـﭗ‬ Պպ Пп प

[b] Ββ Bb ‫ﺑـ ـﺒـ ـﺐ‬ Բբ Бб ब
[bh] Βη βη Bh bh ‫ﺑﮭـ ـﺒﮭـ ـﺒﮭ‬ Բհ բհ Бх бх भ
[t] Ττ Tt ‫ﺗـ ـﺘـ ـﺖ‬ Տտ Тт त
[th] Θθ Th th ‫ﺗﮭـ ـﺘﮭـ ـﺘﮭ‬ Թթ Тх тх थ
[d] Δδ Dd ‫د ـﺪ ـﺪ‬ Դդ Дд द
[dh] Δη δη Dh dh ‫دھـ ـﺪھـ ـﺪھ‬ Դհ դհ Дх дх ध
[k] Κκ Kk ‫ﻛـ ـﻜـ ـﮏ‬ Կկ Кк क
[kh] Χχ Kh kh ‫ﻛﮭـ ـﻜﮭـ ـﻜﮭ‬ Քք Кх кх ख
[g] Γγ Gg ‫ﮔـ ـﮕـ ـﮓ‬ Գգ Гг ग
[gh] Γη γη Gh gh ‫ﮔﮭـ ـﮕﮭـ ـﮕﮭ‬ Գհ գհ Гх гх घ
[kw] Ϙϙ Qq ‫ق ـﻘـ ـﻖ‬ Խխ Къ къ क़
[gw] Ϟϟ Cc ‫ﻏـ ـﻐـ ـﻎ‬ Ղղ Гъ гъ ग़
[gwh] Ϟη ϟη Ch ch ‫ﻏﮭـ ـﻐﮭـ ـﻐﮭ‬ Ղհ ղհ Гъх гъх ग़ह
[h] Ηη Hh ‫ھـ ـﮭـ ـﮭ‬ Հհ Хх ह
[ʔ] ’ ’ ‫ء‬ ’ ’ ॰

[j] Jϳ Jj ‫ﭘـ ـﭘـ ـۑ‬ Յյ Йй य

[w] Ϝϝ Ww ‫ۋ ـﯟ ـﯟ‬ Ււ Вв व
[r] Ρρ Rr ‫ـﺮ ـﺮ ر‬ Ռռ Рр र
[l] Λλ Ll ‫ﻟـ ـﻠـ ـﻞ‬ Լլ Лл ल
[m] Μμ Mm ‫ﻣـ ــﻤــ ـﻢ‬ Մմ Мм म
[n] Νν Nn ‫ﻧــ ـﻨـ ـﻦ‬ Նն Нн न
[s] Σσς Ss ‫ﺳـ ـﺴـ ـﺲ‬ Սս Сс स

35
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

Sounds found in Proto-Greek only

[ph] Φφ Ph ph ‫ﭘھ ـﭙھـ ـﭙﮭ‬ Փփ Пх пх फ
[kwh] Ϙη ϙη Qh qh ‫ﻗﮭ ـﻘﮭـ ـﻘﮭ‬ Խհ խհ Чх чх क़ह
[ts͡ ] Τσ τσ Ts ts ‫ﺗﺴـ ـﺘﺴـ ـﺘﺲ‬ Ծծ Цц तस
[d� z] Δζ δζ Dz dz ‫دز ـدز ـﺪز‬ Ձձ Дз дз दष
Sounds found in Proto-Indo-Iranian only
[t̠ɕ͡ ] Τϻ τϻ Ķķ ‫ﺗﮋ ـﺘﮋ ـﺘﮋ‬ Չչ Чч तश
[d̠ ͡ʑ] Δϻ δϻ Ģģ ‫دﮋ ـﺪﮋ ـﺪﮋ‬ Ցց Дщ дщ दष
[d̠ ͡ʑh] Δϻη δϻη Ģh ģh ‫ـدﮋھـ ـﺪﮋھ‬ Ցհ ցհ Дщ дщ दषह
[t͡ʃ] Τþ τþ Ḳḳ ‫ﭼـ ـﭼـ ـﭻ‬ Ճճ Тш тш च
[d͡ʒ] Δþ δþ Ġġ ‫ﺟـ ـﺟـ ـﺞ‬ Ջջ Дж дж ज
[d͡ʒh] Δþη δþη Ġh ġh ‫ھـ ـﺟھـ ـﺟھ‬ Ջհ ջհ Джх джх झ
[ʃ] Ϸþ Šš ‫ﺶ ـﺶ ـﺶ‬ Շշ Шш श

VOWELS AND VOCALIC ALLOPHONES

Phoneme Greek Latin Perso-Arab Armenian Cyrillic Nāgarī

[a] Αα Aa ‫ا ـﺎ ـﺎ‬ Աա Аа अ
[e] Εε Ee ‫ێـ ـێـ ـێ‬ Էէ Ee ए
[o] Οο Oo ‫ۆ ـﯚ ـﯚ‬ Օօ Оо ओ
[] Ᾱᾱ Āā ‫اٴ ـﺎٴ ـﺎٴ‬ Ա՟ ա՟ Āā आ
[] Ē ε̄ Ēē ‫ـێ‬
‫ێٴـ ـێٴـ ٴ‬ Է՟ է՟ Ēē ऐ
[] Ōō Ōō ‫ٴۆ ٴـﯚ ٴـﯚ‬ Օ՟ օ՟ Ōō औ

[i] Ιι Ii ‫ﯾـ ـﯿـ ی‬ Իի Ии इ

[] Ῑῑ Īī ‫ی‬
‫ٴﯾـ ـ ٴﯿـ ٴ‬ Ի՟ ի՟ Ӣӣ ई
[u] Υυ Uu ‫و ـﻮ ـﻮ‬ Ոո Уу उ
[] Ῡῡ Ūū ‫ٴو ـ ٴﻮ ـ ٴﻮ‬ Ո՟ ո՟ Ӯӯ ऊ

[r̥] Ρ̣ ρ̣ Ṛṛ ‫ـﺮ‬ٜ ‫ـﺮ‬ٜ ‫ر‬ٜ Ռՙ ռՙ Р̣ р̣ ऋ

[l̥] Λ̣ λ̣ Ḷḷ ‫ـﻞ‬ٜ ‫ـﻠـ‬ٜ ‫ﻟـ‬ٜ Լՙ լՙ Л̣ л̣ ऌ
[m̥] Μ̣ μ̣ Ṃṃ ‫ـﻢ‬ٜ ‫ــﻤــ‬
ٜ ‫ﻣـ‬ٜ Մՙ մՙ М̣ м̣ अं
[n̥] Ν̣ ν̣ Ṇṇ ‫ـﻦ‬ٜ ‫ـﻨـ‬ٜ ‫ﻧــ‬ٜ Նՙ նՙ М̣ м̣ अः

36
 Preface

CONVENTIONAL QUESTIONS
This proposal is purely conventional, and it takes into account values such as
availability, simplicity (one letter for each sound), transliteration, tradition.
NOTE. We have followed this order of objectives in non-Brahmic scripts:
• Availability: especially of letters in common Latin and Cyrillic keyboards and
typography, since they account for most of the current Northern IE world.
• Simplicity: each sound is represented with one letter (or letter plus diacritics).
Digraphs used only when necessary: aspirated consonants are represented with the
consonant plus the letter for [h], unless there is an independent character for that
aspirated consonant.
• Equivalence of letters: a character in one alphabet should be transliterated and read
directly in any other to allow an automatic change from the main alphabets into the
others without human intervention. The lack of adequate characters to represent PIE
phonetics (resonants, semivowels, long vowels) in alphabets conditions the final
result.
• Tradition: the historic or modern sound of the letters is to be retained when possible.

Writing systems of the Indo-European World. (2011, modified from Mirzali Zazaoğlu
2008)

The names of the consonants in Indo-European following the Latin pattern would
be – B, be (pronounced bay); Bh, bhe (bhay); C, ce (gway); Ch, che (gwhay); D,
de (day); Dh, dhe (dhay); G, ge (gay); Gh, ghe (ghay); H, ha; K, ka; L, el; M,
em; N, en; P, pe; Q, qa (kwa); R, er; S, es; T, te; W, wa.
In Aryan, the letters are named with their sound followed by a, as in Sanskrit –
ba, bha, ca, cha, da, dha, ga, gha, and so on.

37
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

An acute accent (´) is written over the vowel in the accented syllable, except when
accent is on the second to last syllable (or paenultima) and in monosyllabic words.
NOTE. Since all non-clitic words of more than one syllable would be marked with one
accent, as we have seen, a more elegant convention is not to write all accents always. The
second to last syllable seems to be the most frequent accented syllable, so we can spare
unnecessary diacritics if the accent is understood in that position, unless marked in other
syllable.
Long vowels are marked with a macron ( ¯ ), and vocalic allophones of resonants
are marked with a dot below it ( ̣). Accented long vowels and resonants are
represented with special characters that include their diacritics plus an acute accent.
NOTE. It is recommended to write all diacritics if possible, although not necessary. The
possibility of omitting the diacritical marks arises from the lack of appropriate fonts in
traditional typography, or difficulty typing those marks in common international keyboards.
Therefore, alternative writings include pater/patḗr, m. father, nmrtos/ṇmṛtós, m.
immortal, kmtom/kṃtóm, hundred, etc. Such a defective representation of accents and
long vowels is common even today in Latin and Greek texts, as well as in most modern
languages, which lack a proper representation for sounds. That does not usually hinder an
advanced reader from read a text properly.
1. The Modern Greek alphabet lacks letters to represent PIE phonetics properly.
Therefore, the Ancient Greek letters and values assigned to them are used instead.
NOTE. The consonant cluster [kh] was in Ancient Greece written as X (Chi) in eastern
Greek, and Ξ (Xi) in western Greek dialects. In the end, X was standardised as [kh] ([x] in
modern Greek), while Ξ represented [ks]. In the Greek alphabet used for IE, X represents
[kh], while Ξ represents [kwh], necessary for the representation of a Proto-Greek voiceless
aspirate. As in Ancient Greek, Φ stands for [ph], and Θ for [th].
The Greek alphabet lacks a proper representation for long vowels, so they are all marked
(as in the other alphabets) with diacritics. Η is used to represent the sound [h], as it was
originally used in most Ancient Greek dialects; it is also used to mark (voiced) aspirated
phonemes. Ē represents [eː] and Ō stands for [oː] in the Greek alphabet for IE. For more on
the problem of historical Eta and its representation in the Modern Greek alphabet, see
<http://www.tlg.uci.edu/~opoudjis/unicode/unicode_aitch.html>.
While not a practical solution (in relation to the available Modern Greek keyboards), we
keep a traditional Ancient Greek script, assuming that it will enjoy the transliteration of texts
mainly written in Latin or Cyrillic letters; so e.g. Archaic koppa Ϙ stood for [k] before back
vowels (e.g. Ϙόρινθος, Korinthos), hence its IE value [kw]. Archaic digamma Ϝ represented
[w], a sound lost already in Classical Greek. Additions to the IE alphabet are new letter koppa
Ϟ for [gw], based on the alternative Unicode shapes of the archaic koppa, and the ‘more
traditional’ inverted iota ℩ for [j], preferred over Latin yot – although the lack of capital letter
for inverted iota makes the use of (at least) a capital J necessary to distinguish [j] from [i].
See <http://www.tlg.uci.edu/~opoudjis/unicode/yot.html>.

38
 Preface

2. The Latin alphabet used to write Indo-European is similar to the English, which
is in turn borrowed from the Late Latin abecedarium. Because of the role of this
alphabet as model for other ones, simplicity and availability of the characters is
preferred over tradition and exactitude.
NOTE. The Latin alphabet was borrowed in very early times from the Greek alphabet and
did not at first contain the letter G. The letters Y and Z were introduced still later, about 50
BC. The Latin character C originally meant [g], a value always retained in the abbreviations
C. (for Gaius) and Cn. (for Gnaeus). That was probably due to Etruscan influence, which
copied it from Greek Γ, Gamma, just as later Cyrillic Г, Ge. In early Latin script C came also
to be used for [k], and K disappeared except before in a few words, as Kal. (Kalendae),
Karthago. Thus there was no distinction in writing between the sounds [g] and [k]. This
defect was later remedied by forming (from C, the original [g]-letter) a new character G. In
Modern Indo-European, unambiguous K stands for [k], and G for [g], so C is left without
value, being used (taking its oldest value [g]) to represent the labiovelar [gw].
V originally denoted the vowel sound [u] (Eng. oo), and F stood for the sound of consonant
[w] (from Gk. ϝ, called digamma). When F acquired the value of our [f], V came to be used
for consonant [w] as well as for the vowel [u]. The Latin [w] semivowel developed into
Romance [v]; therefore V no longer adequately represented [u] or [w], and the Latin alphabet
had to develop alternative letters. The Germanic [w] phoneme was therefore written as VV
(a doubled V or U) by the seventh or eighth century by the earliest writers of Old English and
Old High German. During the late Middle Ages, two forms of V developed, which were both
used for its ancestor [u] and modern [v]. The pointed form V was written at the beginning of
a word, while a rounded form U was used in the middle or end, regardless of sound. The
more recent letters U and Germanic W probably represent the sounds [u] and [w]
respectively more unambiguously than Latin V.
The letter I stood for the vowel [i], and was also used in Latin (as in Modern Greek) for its
consonant sound [j]. J was originally developed as a swash character to end some Roman
numerals in place of I; both I and J represented [i], [iː], and [j]. In IE, J represents the
semivowel [j], an old Latin value current in most Germanic and Slavic languages. Y is used
to represent the vowel [y] in foreign words. That [j] value is retained in English J only in
foreign words, as Hallelujah or Jehovah. Because Romance languages developed new sounds
(from former [j] and [ɡ]) that came to be represented as I and J, English J (from French J),
as well as Spanish, Portuguese or Italian J have sound values quite different from [j]. The
romanisation of the sound [j] from different writing systems (like Devanagari) as Y – which
originally represented in Latin script the Greek vowel [y] – is due to its modern value in
English and French, and has spread a common representation of [j] as Y in Indo-European
studies, while J is used to represent other sounds.
A different use of the Latin alphabet to represent PIE, following the Classical Latin
tradition, is available at <http://verger1.narod.ru/lang1.htm>.

39
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

3. The Perso-Arabic script has been adapted to the needs of a fully differentiated
PIE alphabet, following Persian, Urdu and Kurdish examples.
NOTE. The Perso-Arabic script is a writing system that is originally based on the Arabic
alphabet. Originally used exclusively for the Arabic language, the Arabic script was modified
to match the Persian language, adding four letters: ‫[ پ‬p], ‫[ چ‬tʃ], ‫[ ژ‬ʒ], and ‫[ گ‬ɡ]. Many
languages which use the Perso-Arabic script add other letters. Besides the Persian alphabet
itself, the Perso-Arabic script has been applied to the Urdu or Kurdish Soraní alphabet.
Unlike the standard Arabic alphabet, which is an abjad (each symbol represents a
consonant, the vowels being more or less defective), the IE perso-arabic script is a true
alphabet, in which vowels are mandatory, making the script easy to read.
Among the most difficult decisions is the use of letters to represent vowels – as in modern
alphabets like Kurdish or Berber – instead of diacritics – as in the traditional Arabic or Urdu
scripts. Following tradition, hamza (originally a glottal stop) should probably be placed on
the short vowels and resonants, instead of the long ones (especially above ‘alif), but
automatic equivalence with the other alphabets make the opposite selection more practical.
Because waw ‫ و‬and yodh ‫ ي‬could represent short and long vowels u and i, and consonantal
w and j, a conventional selection of current variants has been made: Arabic letter Ve,
sometimes used to represent the sound [v] when transliterating foreign words in Arabic, and
also used in writing languages with that sound (like Kurdish) is an obvious selection for
consonantal [w] because of its availability. The three-dotted yodh becomes then a
consequent selection for consonantal yodh. Hamza distinguishes then the long vowel from
the short ones, which is represented with the original symbols.
4. Armenian characters, similarly to Greek, need to be adapted to a language with
a different series of short and long vowels and aspirated phonemes.
NOTE. Because of that, a tentative selection is made, which needs not be final – as with any
other script. Because Armenian lacks a proper character for [u], and because it has not
different characters to represent long vowels other than [eː] or [oː], the more practical choice
is to imitate the other alphabets to allow for equivalence. The characters that represent short
vowels also represent different sounds; as, Ե for [ɛ] and word initially [jɛ], and Ո for [o] and
word initially [vo], so a less ambiguous choice would be Է for [e] and Օ for [o]. Hence the
letter Ո historically used to write [o] and [u] (in digraphs) stands for [u].
The conventional selection of one-character representation of aspirated voiceless
consonants follows Armenian tradition and equivalence with Greek, a closely related
language, as we have already seen; i.e. Proto-Greek is probably the nearest branch to the one
Pre-Armenian actually belonged to, and it is therefore practical to retain equivalence
between both scripts.
Armenian diacritics (like the abbreviation mark proposed for long vowels) are defined as
‘modifier letters’, not as ‘combining diacritical marks’ in Unicode, so they do not combine as
true superscript. Some fonts do combine them, as Everson Mono Ա՟ ա՟ Է՟ է՟ Օ՟ օ՟ Ի՟ ի՟ Ո՟ ո՟
.

40
 Preface

6. The Cyrillic script is used following its modern trends, taking on account that
Russian is the model for most modern keyboards and available typography.
NOTE. Non-Russian characters have been avoided, and we have followed the principle of
one letter for each sound: While Й is commonly used to represent [j], Cyrillic scripts usually
lack a character to represent consonantal [w], given that usually [v] (written В) replaces it.
While У is generally used in Cyrillic for foreign words, a ‘one character, one sound’ policy
requires the use of a character complementary to Й, which is logically found in В – a sound
lacking in Indo-European.
In Slavistic transcription jer Ъ and front jer Ь were used to denote Proto-Slavic extra-short
sounds [ŭ] and [ĭ] respectively (e.g. slověnьskъ adj. ‘slavonic’). Today they are used with
other values in the different languages that still use them, but the need for traditional ‘labial’
[w] and ‘palatal’ [j] signs available in most Cyrillic keyboards made them the most logical
selection to mark a change of value in the characters representing stops.
7. The Brahmic or Indic scripts are a family of abugida (alphabetic-syllabary)
writing systems, historically used within their communities – from Pakistan to
Indochina – to represent Sanskrit, whose phonology is similar to the parent PIE
language. Devanāgarī has come to be the most commonly used Brahmic script to
represent Sanskrit, hence our proposal of its character values for the rest of them.
NOTE. The characters and accents are generally used following their traditional phonetic
value. Exceptions are the lack of vocalic characters to properly represent [m̥] and [n̥]. Hence
anusvara अं, which represents [ṃ], is used to represent [m̥]. Also, visarga अः, which stands
for [ḥ] (allophonic with word-final r and s) is proposed for [n̥].
Automatic transliteration between many Brahmic scripts is usually possible, and
highly available within scripts used in India.
NOTE. That happens e.g. with the InScript keyboard: because all Brahmic scripts share the
same order, any person who knows InScript typing in one script can type in any other Indic
script using dictation even without knowledge of that script.
However, due to the lack of characters in western alphabets to represent resonants
and long vowels, diacritics are used. These diacritics are not commonly available
(but for the Arabic hamza), and therefore if they are not written, transliteration into
Brahmic scripts becomes defective. That problem does not exist in the other
direction i.e. from Brahmic scripts into the other alphabets.

41
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
1. Modern Indo-European (MIE) is therefore a set of conventions or ‘rules’ applied
to systematise the reconstructed North-West Indo-European dialect of Late Indo-
European – see below §§ 1.3, 1.7.1. Such conventions refer to its writing system,
morphology and syntax, and are conceived to facilitate the transition of the
reconstructed language into a learned and living one.
2. Because proto-languages were spoken by prehistoric societies, no genuine
sample texts are available, and thus comparative linguistics is not in the position to
reconstruct exactly how the language was, but more or less certain approximations,
whose statistical confidence decrease as we get further back in time. The
hypothesised language will then be always somewhat controversial.
NOTE 1. Mallory–Adams (2007): “How real are our reconstructions? This question has
divided linguists on philosophical grounds. There are those who argue that we are not really
engaged in ‘reconstructing’ a past language but rather creating abstract formulas that
describe the systematic relationship between sounds in the daughter languages. Others argue
that our reconstructions are vague approximations of the proto-language; they can never be
exact because the proto-language itself should have had different dialects (yet we reconstruct
only single proto-forms) and our reconstructions are not set to any specific time. Finally,
there are those who have expressed some statistical confidence in the method of
reconstruction. Robert Hall, for example, claimed that when examining a test control case,
reconstructing proto-Romance from the Romance languages (and obviously knowing
beforehand what its ancestor, Latin, looked like), he could reconstruct the phonology at 95%
confidence, and the grammar at 80%. Obviously, with the much greater time depth of Proto-
Indo-European, we might well wonder how much our confidence is likely to decrease. Most
historical linguists today would probably argue that reconstruction results in
approximations. A time traveller, armed with this book and seeking to make him- or herself
understood would probably engender frequent moments of puzzlement, not a little laughter,
but occasional instances of lucidity.”
On the same question, Fortson (2004): “How complete is our picture of PIE? We know
there are gaps in our knowledge that come not only from the inevitable loss and replacement
of a percentage of words and grammatical forms over time, but also from the nature of our
preserved texts. Both the representative genres and external features such as writing systems
impose limits on what we can ascertain about the linguistic systems of both PIE and the
ancient IE languages (…)
In spite of all the scholarly disagreements that enliven the pages of technical books and
journals, all specialists would concur that enormous progress has been made since the
earliest pioneering work in this field, with consensus having been reached on many
substantial issues. The Proto-Indo-Europeans lived before the dawn of recorded human

42
 Preface

history, and it is a testament to the power of the comparative method that we know as much
about them as we do.”
NOTE 2. The Hebrew language revival is comparable to our proposal of speaking Indo-
European as a living language. We have already said that ‘living’ and ‘dead’, ‘natural’ and
‘learned’, are not easily applicable to ancient or classical languages. It is important to note
that, even though there is a general belief that Modern Hebrew and Ancient Hebrew are the
same languages, among Israeli scholars there have been calls for the “Modern Hebrew”
language to be called “Israeli Hebrew” or just “Israeli”, due to the strong divergences that
exist – and further develop with its use – between the modern language spoken in Israel and
its theoretical basis, the Ancient Hebrew from the Tanakh. The old language system, with its
temporary and dialectal variations spanned over previous centuries of oral tradition, was
compiled probably between 450-200 BC, i.e when the language was already being
substituted by Aramaic. On that interesting question, prof. Ghil’ad Zuckermann considers
that “Israelis are brainwashed to believe they speak the same language as the prophet Isaiah,
a purely Semitic language, but this is false. It’s time we acknowledge that Israeli is very
different from the Hebrew of the past”. He points out to the abiding influence of modern
Indo-European dialects – especially Yiddish, Russian and Polish –, in vocabulary, syntax and
phonetics, as imported by Israel’s founders.
3. Features of Late Indo-European that are common to IEDs (North-West Indo-
European, Proto-Greek and Proto-Indo-Iranian), like most of the nominal and
verbal inflection, morphology, and syntax, make it possible for LIE to be proposed
as Dachsprache for the living languages.
NOTE 1. Because North-West Indo-European had other sister dialects that were spoken by
coeval prehistoric communities, languages like Modern Hellenic (a revived Proto-Greek) and
Modern Aryan (a revived Proto-Indo-Iranian) can also be used in the regions where their
surviving dialects are currently spoken. These proto-languages are not more different from
North-West Indo-European than are today English from Dutch, Czech from Slovenian,
Spanish from Italian. They might also serve as linguae francae for closely related languages
or neighbouring regions; especially interesting would be to have a uniting Aryan language
for today’s religiously divided South and West Asia.
NOTE 2. The terms Ausbausprache-Abstandsprache-Dachsprache were coined by Heinz
Kloss (1967), and they are designed to capture the idea that there are two separate and largely
independent sets of criteria and arguments for calling a variety an independent “language”
rather than a “dialect”: the one based on its social functions, and the other based on its
objective structural properties. A variety is called an ausbau language if it is used
autonomously with respect to other related languages.
Dachsprache means a language form that serves as standard language for different
dialects, even though these dialects may be so different that mutual intelligibility is not
possible on the basilectal level between all dialects, particularly those separated by
significant geographical distance. So e.g. the Rumantsch Grischun developed as such a
Dachsprache for a number of quite different Romansh language forms spoken in parts of

43
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

Switzerland; or the Euskara Batua, “Standard Basque”, and the Southern Quechua literary
standard, both developed as standard languages for dialect continua that had historically
been thought of as discrete languages with many dialects and no “official" dialect. Standard
German and standard Italian to some extent function (or functioned) in the same way.
Perhaps the most widely used Dachsprache is Modern Standard Arabic, which links together
the speakers of many different, often mutually unintelligible Arabic dialects.
The standard Indo-European looked for in this grammar takes Late Indo-European
reconstruction as the wide Dachsprache necessary to encompass (i.e. to serve as linguistic
umbrella for) the modern usage of IEDs, whose – phonetic, morphological, syntactical –
peculiarities are also respected.
4. Modern Indo-European words to complete the lexicon of North-West Indo-
European, in case that no common vocabulary is found in Late Indo-European, are
to be loan-translated from present-day Northwestern IE languages. Common loan
words from sister dialects can also be loan-translated or borrowed as loan words.
NOTE. Even though the vocabulary reconstructible for IEDs is indeed wider than the
common Proto-Indo-European lexicon, a remark of Mallory–Adams (2007) regarding
reconstructible PIE words is interesting, in that it shows another difficulty of trying to speak
a common LIE or PIH:
“To what extent does the reconstructed vocabulary mirror the scope of the original PIE
language? The first thing we should dismiss is the notion that the language (any language)
spoken in later prehistory was somehow primitive and restricted with respect to vocabulary.
Counting how many words a language has is not an easy task because linguists (and
dictionaries) are inconsistent in their definition or arrangement of data. If one were simply
to count the headwords of those dictionaries that have been produced to deal with nonliterate
languages in Oceania, for example, the order of magnitude is somewhere on the order of
15,000–20,000 ‘words’. The actual lexical units are greater because a single form might have
a variety of different meanings, each of which a speaker must come to learn, e.g. the English
verb take can mean ‘to seize’, ‘to capture’, ‘to kill’, ‘to win in a game’, ‘to draw a breath’,
‘imbibe a drink’, ‘to accept’, ‘to accommodate’ to name just a few of the standard dictionary
meanings. Hence, we might expect that a language spoken c. 4000 BC would behave very
much like one spoken today and have a vocabulary on the order of 30,000–50,000 lexical
units. If we apply fairly strict procedures to distinguishing PIE lexical items to the roots and
words listed in Mallory and Adams’s Encyclopedia or Calvert Watkins’s The American
Heritage Dictionary of Indo-European Roots (1985) we have less than 1,500 items. The range
of meanings associated with a single lexeme is simply unknown although we occasionally get
a hint, e.g. *bher- indicates both ‘carry (a load)’ and ‘bear (a child)’. So the PIE vocabulary
that we reconstruct may well provide the basis for a much larger lexicon given the variety of
derivational features in PIE.”
Examples of loan translations from modern NWIE languages are e.g. from Latin
aquaeduct (Lat. aquaeductus → MIE aqāsduktos) or universe (Lat.

44
 Preface

uniuersus<*oin(i)-uors-o-<*oino-wṛt-to- → MIE oinowṛstós ‘turned into one’);

from English, like software (from Gmc. samþu-, warō → MIE somtúworā); from
French, like ambassador (from Cel. amb(i)actos → MIE ambhíagtos ‘public
servant’); or chamber (from O.Lat. camera, from PGk. kamárā, ‘vault’ → MIE
kamarā); from Russian, like bolshevik (MIE belijówikos); etc.
NOTE. Loan words from sister IE dialects can be either loan-translated or directly taken as
loan-words; as e.g. ‘photo’, which should be taken directly as loan-word o-stem pháwotos,
from Gk phawots, gen. phawotós, as Gk. φῶς (<φάϝος), φωτός, in compound
phawotogṛphjā, photography, derived from IE root bhā-, shine, which could be loan-
translated as MIE ˟bháwots, from ˟bhawotogṛbhjā, but without having a meaning for
extended bha-wes-, still less for bha-wot-, in North-West Indo-European or even Proto-
Indo-European, as it is only found in Ancient Greek dialects. Or MIE skhol, from Lat.
schola, taken from Gk. σχολή (<PGk. skhol) ‘spare time, leisure, tranquility’, borrowed
from Greek with the meaning ‘school’, which was in O.Gk. σχολεῖον (scholeíon), translated
as PGk. skholehjom <*-esjo-m, from IE root segh-, which could also be loan-translated as
MIE ˟sghol or even more purely (and artificially) ˟sgholesjom, none of them being
Proto-Indo-European or common Indo-European terms. Examples from Indo-Iranian
include wasāḳáranas, bazaar, from O.Ira. vahacarana ‘sale-traffic, bazaar’, which could
also be translated as proper MIE ˟wesāqólenos, from PIE roots wes- and qel-; or
ḳatúrangam, chess, from Skt. caturaŋgam (which entered Europe from Pers. shatranj) a
bahuvrihi compound, meaning ‘having four limbs or parts’, which in epic poetry often means
‘army’, possibly shortened from ḳaturangabalam, Skt. caturaŋgabalam, lit. ‘four-member
force’, ‘an army comprising of four parts’, could be loan-translated as MIE ˟qaturangom
and ˟qaturangobelom, from roots qetur-, ang- and bel-.
Loan words and loan translations might also coexist in specialised terms; as, from
*h1rudhrós, red, PGk eruthrós, in loan eruthrókutos, erythrocyte, proper MIE rudhrós,
in rudhr (ésenos) kētjā, red (blood) cell; cf. also MIE mūs, musós, mouse, muscle, PGk
mūs, muhós, in loan muhokutos, myocyte, for muskosjo kētjā, muscle cell.
1.8.5. The name of the Modern Indo-European is eurōpājóm, or eurōpāj
dṇghwā, European language, from adj. eurōpājós, m. European, in turn from
the Greek noun Eurōpā.
NOTE. Gk. Eurōpā is from unknown origin, even though it was linked with Homer’s epithet
for Zeus euruopā, from *hurú-oqeh2 ‘far-seeing, broad’, or *h1urú-woqeh2 ‘far-sounding’
(Heath, 2005). Latinate adj. europaeus, which was borrowed by most European languages,
comes from Gk. adj. eurōpaíos, in turn from PGk eurōpai-jós < PIE *eurōpeh2-jós → MIE
eurōpā-jós. For the evolution PIH *-eh2jo- → PGk *-aijo-, cf. adjective formation in Gk.
agor-agoraíos, Ruigh (1967).
In the old IE languages, those which had an independent name for languages used the
neuter. Compare Gk. n.pl. Ἑλληνικά (hellēniká), Skt. n.sg. संस्कृ तम् (saṃskṛtam), O.H.G.
diutisc, O.Prus. prūsiskan, etc.; cf. also in Tacitus Lat. uōcābulum latīnum. In most IE

45
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

languages, the language is also referred to as ‘language’ defined by an adjective, whose gender
follows the general rule of concordance; cf. Skt. saṃskṛtā vāk ‘refined speech’, Gk. ελληνική
γλώσσα, Lat. latīna lingua, O.H.G. diutiska sprāhha (Ger. Deutsche Sprache), O.Prus.
prūsiskai bilā, O.C.S. словѣньскыи ѩзыкъ (slověnĭskyi językŭ), etc.
Common scholar terms would include sindhueurōpājóm, Indo-European,
prāmosindhueurōpājóm, Proto-Indo-European, ópitjom sindhueurōpājóm,
Modern Indo-European,etc.

46
 PART I
LANGUAGE &
CULTURE

Collection of texts and images adapted and organised by Carlos Quiles, with
contributions by Fernando López-Menchero
 1. Introduction

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. THE INDO-EUROPEAN LANGUAGE FAMILY
1.1.1. The IE
languages are a
family of several
hundred modern
languages and
dialects, including
most of the major
languages of
Europe, as well as
many in Asia.
Contemporary Countries with a majority (dark colour) and minority or
official status (light) of Indo-European language speakers.
languages in this (2011, modified from Brianski 2007)
family include English, German, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Hindustani (i.e.,
Hindi and Urdu among other modern dialects), Persian and Russian. It is the largest
family of languages in the world today, being spoken by approximately half the
world’s population as mother tongue. Furthermore, the majority of the other half
speaks at least one of them as second language.
1.1.2. Romans didn’t perceive similarities between Latin and Celtic dialects, but
they found obvious correspondences with Greek. After grammarian Sextus
Pompeius Festus:
“Suppum antiqui dicebant, quem nunc supinum dicimus ex Graeco, videlicet pro
adspiratione ponentes <s> litteram, ut idem ὕλας dicunt, et nos silvas; item ἕξ sex, et ἑπτά
septem”
Such findings are not striking, though, as Rome was believed to have been
originally funded by Trojan hero Aeneas and, consequently, Latin was derived from
Old Greek.
1.1.3. Florentine merchant Filippo Sassetti travelled to the Indian subcontinent,
and was among the first European observers to study the ancient Indian language,
Sanskrit. Writing in 1585, he noted some word similarities between Sanskrit and
Italian, e.g. deva/dio ‘God’, sarpa/serpe ‘snake’, sapta/sette ‘seven’, ashta/otto
‘eight’, nava/nove ‘nine’. This observation is today credited to have foreshadowed
the later discovery of the Indo-European language family.

49
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

1.1.4. The first proposal of the possibility of a common origin for some of these
languages came from Dutch linguist and scholar Marcus Zuerius van Boxhorn in
1647. He discovered the similarities among Indo-European languages, and
supposed the existence of a primitive common language which he called ‘Scythian’.
He included in his hypothesis Dutch, Greek, Latin, Persian, and German, adding
later Slavic, Celtic and Baltic languages. He excluded languages such as Hebrew
from his hypothesis. However, the suggestions of van Boxhorn did not become
widely known and did not stimulate further research.
1.1.5. On 1686, German linguist Andreas Jäger published De Lingua Vetustissima
Europae, where he identified an remote language, possibly spreading from the
Caucasus, from which Latin, Greek, Slavic, ‘Scythian’ (i.e. Persian) and Celtic (or
‘Celto-Germanic’) were derived, namely Scytho-Celtic.
1.1.6. The hypothesis re-appeared in 1786 when Sir William Jones first lectured on
similarities between four of the oldest languages known in his time: Latin, Greek,
Sanskrit and Persian:
“The Sanskrit language, whatever be its antiquity, is of a wonderful structure; more
perfect than the Greek, more copious than the Latin, and more exquisitely refined than
either, yet bearing to both of them a stronger affinity, both in the roots of verbs and
the forms of grammar, than could possibly have been produced by accident; so strong
indeed, that no philologer could examine them all three, without believing them to
have sprung from some common source, which, perhaps, no longer exists: there is a
similar reason, though not quite so forcible, for supposing that both the Gothic and
the Celtic, though blended with a very different idiom, had the same origin with the
Sanskrit; and the old Persian might be added to the same family”

1.1.7. Danish Scholar Rasmus Rask was the first to point out the connection
between Old Norwegian and Gothic on the one hand, and Lithuanian, Slavonic,
Greek and Latin on the other. Systematic comparison of these and other old
languages conducted by the young German linguist Franz Bopp supported the
theory, and his Comparative Grammar, appearing between 1833 and 1852, counts
as the starting-point of Indo-European studies as an academic discipline.
NOTE. The term Indo-European itself now current in English literature, was coined in 1813
by the British scholar Sir Thomas Young, although at that time there was no consensus as to
the naming of the recently discovered language family. Among the names suggested were
indo-germanique (C. Malte-Brun, 1810), Indoeuropean (Th. Young, 1813), japetisk (Rasmus
C. Rask, 1815), indisch-teutsch (F. Schmitthenner, 1826), sanskritisch (Wilhelm von
Humboldt, 1827), indokeltisch (A. F. Pott, 1840), arioeuropeo (G. I. Ascoli, 1854), Aryan (F.
M. Müller, 1861), aryaque (H. Chavée, 1867), etc.

50
 1. Introduction

In English, Indo-German was used by J. C. Prichard in 1826 although he preferred Indo-

European. In French, use of indo-européen was established by A. Pictet (1836). In German
literature, Indo-Europäisch was used by Franz Bopp since 1835. The term Indo-Germanisch
had already been introduced by Julius von Klapproth in 1823, intending to include the
northernmost and the southernmost of the family’s branches, as it was as an abbreviation of
the full listing of involved languages that had been common in earlier literature; that opened
the doors to ensuing fruitless discussions whether it should not be Indo-Celtic, or even
Tocharo-Celtic.

1.2. TRADITIONAL VIEWS

1.2.1. In the beginnings of the Indo-European studies using the comparative
method, Indo-European was reconstructed as a unitary proto-language. For Rask,
Bopp and other linguists, it was a search for the Indo-European. Such a language
was supposedly spoken in a certain region between Europe and Asia and at one
point in time.
1.2.2. The Stammbaumtheorie or Genealogical Tree theory states that languages
split up in other languages, each of them in turn split up in others, and so on, like
the branches of a tree. For example, a well-known out-dated theory about Indo-
European is that, within the PIE language, two main groups of dialects known as
centum and satem were formed, a model represented by a clean break-up from the
parent language.
NOTE. The centum and satem isogloss is one of the oldest known phonological differences
of IE languages, and is still used by many to classify PIE in two main dialectal groups –
postulating the existence of proto-Centum and proto-Satem languages –, according to their
pronunciation of PIE *(d)km̥tóm, hundred, disregarding their relevant morphological and
syntactical differences, and usually implicitly accepting a common PIE series of palatovelars.
Tree diagrams remain the most used model for understanding the Indo-European
language reconstruction, since it was proposed by A. Schleicher (Compendium,
1866). The problem with its simplicity is that “the branching of the different groups
is portrayed as a series of clean breaks with no connection between branches after
they have split, as if each dialectal group marched away from the rest. Such sharp
splits are possible, but assuming that all splits within Proto-Indo-European were
like this is not very plausible, and any linguist surveying the current Indo-European
languages would note dialectal variations running through some but not all areas,
often linking adjacent groups who may belong to different languages” (Mallory–
Adams, 2007).

51
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

1.2.3. The Wellentheorie or Waves Theory, of J. Schmidt, states that one language
is created from another by the spread of innovations, the way water waves spread
when a stone hits the water surface. The lines that define the extension of the
innovations are called isoglosses. The convergence of different isoglosses over a
common territory signals the existence of a new language or dialect. Where
isoglosses from different languages coincide, transition zones are formed.
NOTE. After Mallory and Adams (2007), “their criteria of inclusion, why we are looking at
any particular one, and not another one, are no more solid than those that define family trees.
The key element here is what linguistic features actually help determine for us whether two
languages are more related or less related to one another.”
1.2.4. Because of the difficulties found in the modelling of Proto-Indo-European
branches and daughter languages into the traditional, unitary ‘Diverging Tree’
framework, i.e. a uniform Proto-Indo-European language with its branches, a new
model called ‘Converging Association of Languages’ was proposed, in which
languages that are in contact (not necessarily related to each other) exchange
linguistic elements and rules, thus developing and acquiring from each other. Most
linguists have rejected it as an implausible explanation of the irregularities found in
the old, static concept of PIE.
NOTE. Among the prominent advocates is N.S. Trubetzkoy (Urheimat, 1939): “The term
‘language family’ does not presuppose the common descent of a quantity of languages from
a single original language. We consider a ‘language family’ a group of languages, in which a
considerable quantity of lexical and morphological elements exhibit regular equivalences (…)
it is not necessary for one to suppose common descent, since such regularity may also
originate through borrowings between neighboring unrelated languages (…) It is just as
conceivable that the ancestors of the Indo-European language branches were originally
different from each other, but though constant contact, mutual influence, and borrowings,
approached each other, without however ever becoming identical to one another” (Meier-
Brügger, 2003).
Agreeing with Neumann (1996), Meier-Brügger (2003) rejects that association of
languages in the Proto-Indo-European case by stating: “that the various Indo-European
languages have developed from a prior unified language is certain. Questionable is, however,
the concrete ‘how’ of this process of differentiation”, and that this “thesis of a ‘converging
association of languages’ may immediately be dismissed, given that all Indo-European
languages are based upon the same Proto-Indo-European flexion morphology. As H. Rix
makes clear, it is precisely this morphological congruence that speaks against the language
association model, and for the diverging tree model.”

52
 1. Introduction

1.3. THE THEORY OF THE THREE STAGES

1.3.1. Even the first Indo-Europeanists had noted in their works the possibility of
reconstructing older stages of the ‘Brugmannian’ Proto-Indo-European.
NOTE. The development of this theory of three linguistic stages can be traced back to the
very origins of Indo-European studies, firstly as a diffused idea of a non-static PIE language,
and later widely accepted as a dynamic dialectal evolution, already in the twentieth century,
after the decipherment of the Anatolian scripts. Most linguists accept that Proto-Indo-
European must be the product of a long historical development, as any ‘common language’
is being formed gradually, and proto-languages (like languages) have stages, as described by
Lehmann (Introducción a la lingüística histórica, Spa. transl. 1961). On this question, H.
Rix (Modussystem, 1986) asserts “[w]hereby comparative reconstruction is based upon a
group of similar forms in a number of languages, internal reconstruction takes its point of
departure from irregularities or inhomogeneities of the system of a single language (…) The
fundamental supposition of language-internal reconstruction is that such an irregularity or
inhomogeneity in the grammar of a language is the result of a diachronic process, in which
an older pattern, or homogeneity is eclipsed, but not fully suppressed”. According to Meier-
Brügger (2003), “Rix works back from Late Proto-Indo-European Phase B (reconstructible
Proto-Indo-European) using deducible information about an Early Proto-Indo-European
Phase A, and gathers in his work related evidence on the Proto-Indo-European verbal
system”. On that question, see also the “Late Indo-European” differentiation in
Gamkrelidze–Ivanov (1994-1995), Adrados–Bernabé–Mendoza (1995-1998); a
nomenclature also widespread today stems from G.E. Dunkel’s Early, Middle, Late Indo-
European: Doing it My Way (1997); etc.
1.3.2. Today, a widespread Three-Stage theory divides PIE internal language
evolution into three main historic layers or stages, including a description of
branches and languages either as clean breaks from a common source (e.g. PAn and
LIE from Indo-Hittite) or from intermediate dialect continua (e.g. Germanic and
Balto-Slavic from North-West IE), or classifying similarities into continued
linguistic contact (e.g. between Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian):
1) Pre-Proto-Indo-European (Pre-PIE), more properly following the current
nomenclature Pre-Indo-Hittite (Pre-PIH), also Early PIE, is the hypothetical
ancestor of Indo-Hittite, and probably the oldest stage of the language that
comparative grammar could help reconstruct using internal reconstruction. There
is, however, no common position as to how it was like or when and where it was
spoken.
2) The second stage corresponds to a time before the separation of Proto-
Anatolian from the common linguistic community where it should have coexisted
(as a Pre-Anatolian dialect) with Pre-LIE. That stage of the language is today

53
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

commonly called Indo-Hittite (PIH), and also Middle PIE, but often simply Proto-
Indo-European; it is identified with early kurgan cultures in the Kurgan
Hypothesis.
NOTE. On the place of Anatolian among IE languages, the question is whether it separated
first as a language branch from PIE, and to what extent was it thus spared developments
common to the remaining Proto-Indo-European language group. There is growing
consensus in favour of its early split from Indo-European (Heading, among others, ‘Indo-
Hittite’); see N. Oettinger (‘Indo-Hittite’ – Hypothesen und Wortbildung 1986), A. Lehrman
(Indo-Hittite Revisited, 1996), H. Craig Melchert (The Dialectal Position of Anatolian within
IE in IE Subgrouping, 1998), etc.
For Kortlandt (The Spread of The Indo-Europeans, JIES 18, 1990): “Since the beginnings
of the Yamnaya, Globular Amphora, Corded Ware, and Afanasievo cultures can all be dated
between 3600 and 3000 BC, I am inclined to date Proto-Indo-European to the middle of the
fourth millennium, and to recognize Proto-Indo-Hittite as a language which may have been
spoken a millennium earlier.”
For Ringe (2006), “[i]nterestingly, there is by now a general consensus among Indo-
Europeanists that the Anatolian subfamily is, in effect, one half of the IE family, all the other
subgroups together forming the other half.”
On the Anatolian question and its implications on nomenclature, West (2007) states that
“[t]here is growing consensus that the Anatolian branch, represented by Hittite and related
languages of Asia Minor, was the first to diverge from common Indo-European, which
continued to evolve for some time after the split before breaking up further. This raises a
problem of nomenclature. It means that with the decipherment of Hittite the ‘Indo-
European’ previously reconstructed acquired a brother in the shape of proto-Anatolian, and
the archetype of the family had to be put back a stage. E. H. Sturtevant coined a new term
‘Indo-Hittite’ (…) The great majority of linguists, however, use ‘Indo-European’ to include
Anatolian, and have done, naturally enough, ever since Hittite was recognized to be ‘an Indo-
European language’. They will no doubt continue to do so.”
3) The common immediate ancestor of most of the reconstructed IE proto-
languages is approximately the same static ‘Brugmannian’ PIE searched for since
the start of Indo-European studies, before Hittite was deciphered. It is usually
called Late Indo-European (LIE) or Late PIE, generally dated some time ca. 3500-
2500 BC using linguistic or archaeological models, or both.
NOTE. According to Mallory–Adams (2007): “Generally, we find some form of
triangulation based on the earliest attested Indo-European languages, i.e. Hittite,
Mycenaean Greek, and Indo-Aryan, each of these positioned somewhere between c. 2000
and 1500 BC. Given the kind of changes linguists know to have occurred in the attested
histories of Greek or Indo-Aryan, etc., the linguist compares the difference wrought by such
changes with the degree of difference between the earliest attested Hittite, Mycenaean Greek,

54
 1. Introduction

and Sanskrit and reconstructed Proto-Indo-European. The order of magnitude for these
estimates (or guesstimates) tends to be something on the order of 1,500-2,000 years. In
other words, employing some form of gut intuition (based on experience which is often
grounded on the known separation of the Romance or Germanic languages), linguists tend
to put Proto-Indo-European sometime around 3000 BC plus or minus a millennium (…) the
earliest we are going to be able to set Proto-Indo-European is about the fifth millennium BC
if we want it to reflect the archaeological reality of Eurasia. We have already seen that
individual Indo-European groups are attested by c. 2000 BC. One might then place a
notional date of c. 4500-2500 BC on Proto-Indo-European. The linguist will note that the
presumed dates for the existence of Proto-Indo-European arrived at by this method are
congruent with those established by linguists’ ‘informed estimation’. The two dating
techniques, linguistic and archeological, are at least independent and congruent with one
another.”
Likewise, in Meier-Brügger (2003), about a common Proto-Indo-European: “No precise
statement concerning the exact time period of the Proto-Indo-European linguistic
community is possible. One may only state that the ancient Indo-European languages that
we know, which date from the 2nd millennium BC, already exhibit characteristics of their
respective linguistic groups in their earliest occurrences, thus allowing one to presume the
existence of a separate and long pre-history (…) The period of 5000-3000 BC is suggested as
a possible timeframe of a Proto-Indo-European language.”
However, on the early historic and prehistoric finds, and the assumption of linguistic
communities linked with archaeological cultures, Hänsel (Die Indogermanen und das Pferd,
B. Hänsel, S. Zimmer (eds.), 1994) states that “[l]inguistic development may be described in
steps that, although logically comprehensible, are not precisely analyzable without a
timescale. The archaeologist pursues certain areas of cultural development, the logic of which
(if one exists) remains a mystery to him, or is only accessible in a few aspects of its complex
causality. On the other hand, he is provided with concrete ideas with regard to time, as vague
as these may be, and works with a concept of culture that the Indo-European linguist cannot
attain. For the archaeologist, culture is understood in the sense of a sociological definition
(…) The archaeological concept of culture is composed of so many components, that by its
very nature its contours must remain blurred. But languages are quite different. Of course
there are connections; no one can imagine cultural connections without any possibility of
verbal communication. But it is too much to ask that archaeologists equate their concept of
culture, which is open and incorporates references on various levels, to the single dimension
of linguistic community. Archaeology and linguistics are so fundamentally different that,
while points of agreement may be expected, parallels and congruency may not. The
advantage of linguistic research is its ability to precisely distinguish between individual
languages and the regularity of developments. The strength of archaeology is its precision in
developing timelines. What one can do, the other cannot. They could complement each other
beautifully, if only there were enough commonality.”

55
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

1.3.3. Another division has to be made, so that the dialectal evolution is properly
understood. Late Indo-European had at least two main inner dialectal branches, the
Southern or Graeco-Aryan (S.LIE) and the Northern (N.LIE) ones.
It seems that speakers of Southern or Graeco-Aryan dialects spread in different
directions with the first LIE migrations (ca. 3000-2500 BC in the Kurgan
framework), forming at least a South-East (including Pre-Indo-Iranian) and a
South-West (including Pre-Greek) group. Meanwhile, speakers of Northern dialects
migrated to the North-West (see below), but for speakers of a North-East IE branch
(from which Pre-Tocharian developed), who migrated to Asia.
NOTE. Beekes (1995), from an archaeological point of view, on the Yamnaya culture: “This
is one of the largest pre-historic complexes in Europe, and scholars have been able to
distinguish between different regions within it. It is dated from 3600-2200 B.C. In this
culture, the use of copper for the making of various implements is more common. From
about 3000 B.C. we begin to find evidence for the presence in this culture of two- and four-
wheeled wagons (…) There seems to be no doubt that the Yamnaya culture represents the
last phase of an Indo-European linguistic unity, although there were probably already
significant dialectal differences within it.”
Fortson (2004) similarly suggests: “in the period 3100-2900 BC came a clear and dramatic
infusion of Yamna cultural practice, including burials, into eastern Hungary and along the
lower Danube. With this we seem able to witness the beginnings of the Indo-Europeanization
of Europe. By this point, the members of the Yamna culture had spread out over a very large
area and their speech had surely become dialecticaly strongly differentiated.”
Meier-Brügger (2003): “Within the group of IE languages, some individual languages are
more closely associated with one another owing to morphological or lexical similarities. The
cause for this, as a rule, is a prehistoric geographic proximity (perhaps even constituting
single linguistic community) or a common preliminary linguistic phase, a middle mother-
language phase, which would however then be posterior to the period of the mother
language.”
About Tocharian, Adrados–Bernabé–Mendoza (1995-1998): “even if archaic in some
respects (its centum character, subjunctive, etc.) it shares common features with Balto-
Slavic, among other languages: they must be old isoglosses, shared before it separated and
migrated to the East. It is, therefore, [a N.LIE] language. It shows great innovations, too,
something normal in a language that evolved isolated.”
On the Southern (Graeco-Aryan or Indo-Greek) LIE dialect, see Tovar (Krahes
alteuropäische Hydronymie und die west-indogermanischen Sprachen, 1977; Actas del II
Coloquio sobre lenguas y culturas prerromanas de la Península Ibérica, Salamanca, 1979),
Gamkrelidze–Ivanov (1993-1994), Clackson (The Linguistic Relationship Between
Armenian and Greek, 1994), Adrados–Bernabé–Mendoza (1995-1998), etc. In Mallory–
Adams (2007): “Many have argued that Greek, Armenian, and Indo-Iranian share a number

56
 1. Introduction

of innovations that suggest that there should have been some form of linguistic continuum
between their predecessors.”
On the Graeco-Aryan community, West (2007) proposes the latest terminus ante quem for
its split: “We shall see shortly that Graeco-Aryan must already have been differentiated from
[LIE] by 2500. We have to allow several centuries for the development of [LIE] after its split
from proto-Anatolian and before its further division. (…) The first speakers of Greek – or
rather of the language that was to develop into Greek; I will call them mello-Greeks – arrived
in Greece, on the most widely accepted view, at the beginning of Early Helladic III, that is,
around 2300. They came by way of Epirus, probably from somewhere north of the Danube.
Recent writers have derived them from Romania or eastern Hungary. (…) we must clearly go
back at least to the middle of the millennium for the postulated Graeco-Aryan linguistic unity
or community.”
1.3.4. The so-called North-West Indo-European is considered by some to have
formed an early linguistic community already separated from other Northern
dialects (which included Pre-Tocharian) before or during the LIE dialectal split, and
is generally assumed to have been a later IE dialect continuum between different
communities in Northern Europe during the centuries on either side of 2500 BC,
with a development usually linked to the expansion of the Corded Ware culture.
NOTE. A dialect continuum, or dialect area, was defined by Leonard Bloomfield as a range
of dialects spoken across some geographical area that differ only slightly between
neighbouring areas, but as one travels in any direction, these differences accumulate such
that speakers from opposite ends of the continuum are no longer mutually intelligible.
Examples of dialect continua included (now blurred with national languages and
administrative borders) the North-Germanic, German, East Slavic, South Slavic, Northern
Italian, South French, or West Iberian languages, among others.
A Sprachbund, also known as a linguistic area, convergence area, diffusion area or
language crossroads – is a group of languages that have become similar in some way because
of geographical proximity and language contact. They may be genetically unrelated, or only
distantly related. That was probably the case with Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian, v.i. §1.7.
North-West IE was therefore a language or group of closely related dialects that
emerged from a parent (N.LIE) dialect, in close contact for centuries, which allowed
them to share linguistic developments.
NOTE. On the so-called “Nort-West Indo-European” dialect continuum, see Tovar (1977,
1979), Eric Hamp (“The Indo-European Horse” in T. Markey and J.Greppin (eds.) When
Worlds Collide: Indo-Europeans and Pre-Indo-Europeans, 1990), N. Oettinger
Grundsätzliche überlegungen zum Nordwest-Indogermanischen (1997), and Zum
nordwestindogermanischen Lexikon (1999); M. E. Huld Indo-Europeanization of Northern
Europe (1996); Adrados–Bernabé–Mendoza (1995-1998); etc.

57
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

Regarding the dating of European proto-languages (of ca. 1500-500 BC) to the same time
as Proto-Greek or Proto-Indo-Iranian (of ca. 2500-2000), obviating the time span between
them, we might remember Kortlandt’s (1990) description of what “seems to be a general
tendency to date proto-languages farther back in time than is warranted by the linguistic
evidence. When we reconstruct Proto-Romance, we arrive at a linguistic stage which is
approximately two centuries later than the language of Caesar and Cicero (cf. Agard 1984:
47-60 for the phonological differences). When we start from the extralinguistic evidence and
identify the origins of Romance with the beginnings of Rome, we arrive at the eighth century
BC, which is almost a millennium too early. The point is that we must identify the formation
of Romance with the imperfect learning of Latin by a large number of people during the
expansion of the Roman empire.”
1.3.4. Apart from the shared phonology and vocabulary, North-Western dialects
show other common features, as a trend to reduce the noun inflection system,
shared innovations in the verbal system (merge of imperfect, aorist and perfect in a
single preterite, although some preterite-presents are found) the -r endings of the
middle or middle-passive voice, a common evolution of laryngeals, etc.
The southern IEDs, which spread in different directions and evolved without
forming a continuum, show therefore a differentiated phonology and vocabulary,
but common older developments like the augment in é-, middle desinences in -i,
athematic verbal inflection, pluperfect and perfect forms, and aspectual
differentiation between the types *bhére/o- and *tudé/o-.

1.4. THE PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN URHEIMAT

The search for the Urheimat or ‘Homeland’ of the prehistoric Proto-Indo-
Europeans has developed as an archaeological quest along with the linguistic
research looking for the reconstruction of the proto-language.
NOTE. Mallory (Journal of Indo-European Studies 1, 1973): “While many have maintained
that the search for the PIE homeland is a waste of intellectual effort, or beyond the
competence of the methodologies involved, the many scholars who have tackled the problem
have ably evinced why they considered it important. The location of the homeland and the
description of how the Indo-European languages spread is central to any explanation of how
Europe became European. In a larger sense it is a search for the origins of western
civilization.”
According to A. Scherer’s Die Urheimat der Indogermanen (1968), summing up
the views of various authors from the years 1892-1963, still followed by mainstream
Indo-European studies today, “[b]ased upon the localization of later languages such
as Greek, Anatolian, and Indo-Iranian, a swathe of land in southern Russia north of

58
 1. Introduction

the Black Sea is often proposed as the native area of the speakers of Proto-Indo-
European”.
1.4.1. HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS
In Adrados–Bernabé–Mendoza (1995-1998), a summary of main linguistic facts is
made, supported by archaeological finds:
“It is communis opinio today that the languages of Europe have developed in situ
in our continent; although indeed, because of the migrations, they have remained
sometimes dislocated, and also extended and fragmented (…) Remember the recent
date of the ‘crystallisation’ of European languages. ‘Old European’ [=North-West
IE], from which they derive, is an already evolved language, with opposition
masculine/feminine, and must be located in time ca. 2000 BC or before. Also, one
must take into account the following data: the existence of Tocharian, related to
[Northern LIE], but far away to the East, in the Chinese Turkestan; the presence of
[Southern LIE] languages to the South of the Carpathian Mountains, no doubt
already in the third millennium (the ancestors of Thracian, Iranian, Greek
speakers); differentiation of Hittite and Luwian, within the Anatolian group, already
ca. 2000 BC, in the documents of Kültepe, what means that Common Anatolian
must be much older.
NOTE. Without taking on account archaeological theories, linguistic data reveals
that:
a) [Northern LIE], located in Europe and in the Chinese Turkestan, must come
from an intermediate zone, with expansion into both directions.
b) [Southern LIE], which occupied the space between Greece and the north-west
of India, communicating both peninsulas through the languages of the
Balkans, Ukraine and Northern Caucasus, the Turkestan and Iran, must also
come from some intermediate location. Being a different linguistic group, it
cannot come from Europe or the Russian Steppe, where Ural-Altaic languages
existed.
c) Both groups have been in contact secondarily, taking on account the different
‘recent’ isoglosses in the contact zone.
d) The more archaic Anatolian must have been isolated from the more evolved
IE; and that in some region with easy communication with Anatolia.
(…) Only the Steppe North of the Caucasus, the Volga river and beyond can
combine all possibilities mentioned: there are pathways that go down into
Anatolia and Iran through the Caucasus, through the East of the Caspian Sea, the

59
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

Gorgan plains, and they can migrate from there to the Chinese Turkestan, or to
Europe, where two ways exist: to the North and to the South of the Carpathian
mountains.

Stage 1
PIH

Anat.

Stage 2
Northern horde Tocharian

West IE Bal.-Sla. N.LIE

Gk.-Thrac. Arm. Ind.-Ira. S.LIE

Southern Horde

Stage 3
Northern Horde

Germanic Bal.-Sla. Northern

Cel. Ita. Indo-Iranian

Southern
Thr.
Arm. I.-I.
Gk.

Southern Horde

Diagram of the expansion and relationships of IE languages. Adapted from

Adrados (1979).
These linguistic data, presented in a diagram, are supported by strong
archaeological arguments: they have been defended by Gimbutas 1985 against
Gamkrelidze–Ivanov (1994-1995) (…). This diagram proposes three stages. In the
first one, [PIH] became isolated, and from it Anatolian emerged, being first
relegated to the North of the Caucasus, and then crossing into the South: Common
Anatolian must be located there. Note that there is no significant temporal
difference with the other groups; it happens also that the first IE wave into Europe
was older. It is somewhere to the North of the people that later went to Anatolia that
happened the great revolution that developed [LIE], the ‘common language’.
The following stages refer to that common language. The first is the one that saw
both [N.LIE] (to the North) and [S.LIE] (to the South), the former being fragmented

60
 1. Introduction

in two groups, one that headed West and one that migrated to the East. That is a
proof that somewhere in the European Russia a common language [N.LIE]
emerged; to the South, in Ukraine or in the Turkestan [S.LIE].
The second stage continues the movements of both branches, that launched waves to the
South, but that were in contact in some moments, arising isoglosses that unite certain
languages of the [Southern IE] group (first Greek, later Iranian, etc.) with those of the
rearguard of [Northern IE] (especially Baltic and Slavic, also Italic and Germanic)”.
NOTE. The assumption of three independent series of velars (v.s. Considerations of
Method), has logical consequences when trying to arrange a consistent chronological and
dialectal evolution from the point of view of historical linguistics. That is necessarily so
because phonological change is generally assumed to be easier than morphological evolution
for any given language. As a consequence, while morphological change is an agreed way to
pinpoint different ancient groups, and lexical equivalences to derive late close contacts and
culture (using them we could find agreement in grouping e.g. Balto-Slavic, Italo-Celtic, and
Germanic between both groups, as well as an older Graeco-Aryan dialects), phonetics is often
used – whether explicitly or not – as key to the groupings and chronology of the final split
up of Late Indo-European, which is at the core of the actual archaeological quest today.
If we assume that the satem languages were show the most natural trend of leniting
palatals from an ‘original’ system of three series of velars; if we assume that the other, centum
languages, had undergone a trend of (unlikely and unparallelled) depalatalisation of the
palatovelars; then the picture of the dialectal split must be different, because centum
languages must be more closely related to each other in ancient times (due to the improbable
happening of depalatalisation in more than one branch independently). That is the scheme
followed in some manuals on IE linguistics or archaeology if three series are reconstructed
or accepted, as it is commonly the case.
From that point of view, Italic, Celtic and Tocharian must be grouped together, while the
satem core can be found in Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian. This contradicts the finds on
different Northern and Graeco-Aryan dialects, though. As already stated, the Glottalic theory
might support that dialectal scheme, by assuming a neater explanation of the natural
evolution of glottalic, voiced and voiceless stops, different from the depalatalisation
proposal. However, the glottalic theory is today mostly rejected (see below §1.5). Huld’s
(1997) explanation of the three series could also support this scheme (see above).

61
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

1.4.2. ARCHAEOLOGY
The Kurgan hypothesis was introduced by Marija Gimbutas (The Prehistory of
Eastern Europe, Part 1, 1956) in order to combine archaeology with linguistics in
locating the origins of the Proto-Indo-Europeans. She named the set of cultures in
question “Kurgan” after their distinctive burial mounds and traced their diffusion
into Eastern and Northern Europe.
NOTE. People were buried with their legs flexed, a position which remained typical for
peoples identified with Indo-European speakers for a long time. The burials were covered
with a mound, a kurgan (Turkish loanword in Russian for ‘tumulus’).
According to her hypothesis, PIE speakers were probably a nomadic tribe of the
Pontic-Caspian steppe that expanded in successive stages of the Kurgan culture and
three successive “waves” of expansion during the third millennium BC:

Hypothetical Urheimat (Homeland) of the first PIE speakers, from 4500 BC

onwards. The Yamna (Pit Grave) culture lasted from ca. 3600 till 2200 BC. In this
time the first wagons appeared. (PD)

• Kurgan I, Dnieper/Volga region, earlier half of the fourth millennium BC.

Apparently evolving from cultures of the Volga basin, subgroups include the
Samara and Seroglazovo cultures.

• Kurgan II–III, latter half of the fourth millennium BC. Includes the Sredny Stog
culture and the Maykop culture of the northern Caucasus. Stone circles, early
two-wheeled chariots, anthropomorphic stone stelae of deities.

62
 1. Introduction

• Kurgan IV or Pit Grave culture, first half of the third millennium BC,
encompassing the entire steppe region from the Ural to Romania.
There were proposed to be three successive “waves” of expansion:

o Wave 1, predating Kurgan I, expansion from the lower Volga to the Dnieper,
leading to coexistence of Kurgan I and the Cucuteni culture. Repercussions of
the migrations extend as far as the Balkans and along the Danube to the Vinča
and Lengyel cultures in Hungary.
o Wave 2, mid fourth millennium BC, originating in the Maykop culture and
resulting in advances of kurganised hybrid cultures into northern Europe
around 3000 BC – Globular Amphora culture, Baden culture, and ultimately
Corded Ware culture.
o Wave 3, 3000-2800 BC, expansion of the Pit Grave culture beyond the steppes;
appearance of characteristic pit graves as far as the areas of modern Romania,
Bulgaria and eastern Hungary.
The ‘kurganised’ Globular Amphora culture in Europe is proposed as a ‘secondary
Urheimat’ of PIE, the culture separating into the Bell-Beaker culture and Corded
Ware culture around 2300 BC. This ultimately resulted in the European IE families
of Italic, Celtic and Germanic languages, and other, partly extinct, language groups
of the Balkans and central Europe, possibly including the proto-Mycenaean
invasion of Greece.
1.4.3. QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS
Glottochronology tries to compare lexical, morphological or phonological traits in
order to develop more trustable timelines and dialectal groupings. It hasn’t
attracted much reliability among linguists, though, in relation with the comparative
method, on which the whole IE reconstruction is still based.
NOTE. Most of these glottochronological works are highly controversial, partly owing to
issues of accuracy, partly to the question of whether its very basis is sound. Two serious
arguments that make this method mostly invalid today are the proof that Swadesh formulae
would not work on all available material, and that language change arises from socio-
historical events which are of course unforeseeable and, therefore, incomputable.
A variation of traditional glottochronology is phylogenic reconstruction; in
biological systematics, phylogeny is a graph intended to represent genetic
relationships between biological taxa. Linguists try to transfer these biological
models to obtain “subgroupings” of one or the other branch of a language family.

63
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

NOTE. Clackson (2007) describes a recent phylogenetic study, by Atkinson et al. (“From
Words to Dates: Water into Wine, Mathemagic or Phylogenetic Inference?”, Transactions
of the Philological Society 103, 2005): “The New Zealand team use models which were
originally designed to build phylogenies based on DNA and other genetic information, which
do not assume a constant rate of change. Instead, their model accepts that the rate of change
varies, but it constrains the variation within limits that coincide with attested linguistic sub-
groups. For example, it is known that the Romance languages all derive from Latin, and we
know that Latin was spoken 2,000 years ago. The rates of lexical change in the Romance
family can therefore be calculated in absolute terms. These different possible rates of change
are then projected back into prehistory, and the age of the parent can be ascertained within
a range of dates depending on the highest and lowest rates of change attested in the daughter
languages. More recently (Atkinson et al. 2005), they have used data based not just on lexical
characters, but on morphological and phonological information as well.”
Their results show a late separation of the Northwestern IE languages, with a last core of
Romance-Germanic, earlier Celto-Romano-Germanic, and earlier Celto-Romano-Germano-
Balto-Slavic. Previous to that date, Graeco-Armenian would have separated earlier than
Indo-Iranian, while Tocharian would have been the earliest to split up from LIE, still within
the Kurgan framework, although quite early (ca. 4000-3000 BC). Before that, the Anatolian
branch is found to have split quite earlier than the dates usually assumed in linguistics and
archaeology (ca. 7000-6000 BC).
Holm proposed to apply a Separation-Level Recovery system to PIE. This is made (Holm,
2008) by using the data on the new Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben, 2nd ed. (Rix et
al. 2001), considered a “more modern and linguistic reliable database” than the data
traditionally used from Pokorny IEW. The results show a similar grouping to those of
Atkinson et al. (2005), differentiating between North-West IE (Italo-Celtic, Germanic, Balto-
Slavic), and Graeco-Aryan (Graeco-Armenian, Indo-Iranian) groups. However, Anatolian is
deemed to have separated quite late compared to linguistic dates, being considered then just
another LIE dialect, therefore rejecting the concept of Indo-Hittite altogether. Some of
Holm’s studies are available at <http://hjholm.de/>.
The most recent quantitative studies then apparently show similar results in the
phylogenetic groupings of recent languages, i.e. Late Indo-European dialects, excluding
Tocharian. Their dates remain, at best, just approximations for the separation of late and
well attested languages, though, while the dating (and even grouping) of ancient languages
like Anatolian or Tocharian with modern evolution patterns remains at best questionable.
One of the newest studies published in this field is “Mapping the Origins and Expansion of
the Indo-European Language Family”, by Remco Bouckaert et al. (2012), published in
Science, in an article that included a podcast with an interview, at
<http://www.sciencemag.org/content/337/6097/989.2.full>. They have even created a
dedicated website with media (including a video) and FAQ / controversies section at
<http://language.cs.auckland.ac.nz/>. It seems that ‘Bayesian Phylogeography’ is in fashion
these days.

64
 1. Introduction

1.4.4. ARCHAEOGENETICS
Cavalli-
Sforza and
Alberto Piazza
argue that
Renfrew (v.i.
§1.5) and
Gimbutas
reinforce
rather than
contradict each
other, stating
that Distribution of haplotypes R1b (light colour) for Eurasiatic
“genetically Paleolithic and R1a (dark colour) for Yamna expansion; black
represents other haplogroups. (2009, modified from Dbachmann
speaking, 2007)
peoples of the Kurgan steppe descended at least in part from people of the Middle
Eastern Neolithic who immigrated there from Turkey”.
NOTE. The genetic record cannot yield any direct information as to the language spoken
by these groups. The current interpretation of genetic data suggests a strong genetic
continuity in Europe; specifically, studies of mtDNA by Bryan Sykes show that about 80% of
the genetic stock of Europeans originated in the Paleolithic.

Distribution of haplogroup R1a (2011, modified from Crates 2009)

65
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

Spencer Wells suggests that the origin, distribution and age of the R1a1 haplotype
points to an ancient migration, possibly corresponding to the spread by the Kurgan
people in their expansion across the Eurasian steppe around 3000 BC, stating that
“there is nothing to contradict this model, although the genetic patterns do not
provide clear support either”.
NOTE. R1a1 is most prevalent in Poland, Russia, and Ukraine, and is also observed in
Pakistan, India and central Asia. R1a1 is largely confined east of the Vistula gene barrier and
drops considerably to the west. The spread of Y-chromosome DNA haplogroup R1a1 has been
associated with the spread of the Indo-European languages too. The mutations that
characterise haplogroup R1a occurred ~10,000 years bp. Haplogroup R1a1, whose lineage is
thought to have originated in the Eurasian Steppes north of the Black and Caspian Seas, is
therefore associated with the Kurgan culture, as well as with the postglacial Ahrensburg
culture which has been suggested to have spread the gene originally.
The present-day population of R1b haplotype, with extremely high peaks in
Western Europe and measured up to the eastern confines of Central Asia, are
believed to be the descendants of a refugium in the Iberian peninsula at the Last
Glacial Maximum, where the haplogroup may have achieved genetic homogeneity.
As conditions eased with the Allerød Oscillation in about 12000 BC, descendants of
this group migrated and eventually recolonised all of Western Europe, leading to
the dominant position of R1b in variant degrees from Iberia to Scandinavia, so
evident in haplogroup maps.
NOTE. High (2011, modified
concentrations from Cadenas
of Mesolithic or 2008)

late Paleolithic
YDNA
haplogroups of
types R1b
(typically well
above 35%) and
I (up to 25%),
are thought to
derive
ultimately of
the robust
Eurasiatic Cro
Magnoid homo sapiens of the Aurignacian culture, and the subsequent gracile
leptodolichomorphous people of the Gravettian culture that entered Europe from the Middle
East 20,000 to 25,000 years ago, respectively.

66
 1. Introduction

1.4.5. THE KURGAN HYPOTHESIS AND THE THREE-STAGE THEORY

ARCHAEOLOGY (Kurgan Hypothesis) LINGUISTICS (Three-Stage Theory)
ca. 4500-4000 BC. Sredny Stog, Dnieper- Proto-Indo-Hittite?
Donets and Sarama cultures, domestication of
the horse.
ca. 4000-3500 BC. The Yamna culture, the Pre-LIE and Pre-PAn dialects evolve in
kurgan builders, emerges in the steppe, and the different communities but presumably still in
Maykop culture in northern Caucasus. contact within the same territory.
ca. 3500-3000 BC. Yamna culture at its peak: Proto-Anatolian becomes isolated (either to
stone idols, two-wheeled proto-chariots, the south of the Caucasus or in the Balkans),
animal husbandry, permanent settlements and and has no more contacts with the linguistic
hillforts, subsisting on agriculture and fishing, innovations of the common Late Indo-
along rivers. Contact of the Yamna culture with European language.
late Neolithic Europe cultures results in Late Indo-European evolves in turn into
kurganised Globular Amphora and Baden dialects, at least a Southern or Graeco-Aryan
cultures. Maykop culture shows earliest and a Northern one.
evidence of the beginning Bronze Age.
ca. 3000-2500 BC. The Yamna culture extends Dialectal communities begin to migrate,
over the entire Pontic steppe. The Corded Ware remaining still in loose contact, enabling the
culture extends from the Rhine to the Volga, spread of the last common phonetic and
corresponding to the latest stage of IE unity. morphological innovations, and loan words.
Different cultures disintegrate, still in loose PAn, spoken in Asia Minor, evolves into
contact, enabling the spread of technology. Common Anatolian.
ca. 2500-2000 BC. The Bronze Age reaches The breakup of the southern IE dialects is
Central Europe with the Beaker culture of complete. Proto-Greek spoken in the
Northern Indo-Europeans. Indo-Iranians settle Balkans; Proto-Indo-Iranian in Central
north of the Caspian in the Sintashta-Petrovka Asia; North-West Indo-European in
and later the Andronovo culture. Northern Europe; Common Anatolian
dialects in Anatolia.
ca. 2000-1500 BC. The chariot is invented, Indo-Iranian splits up in two main dialects,
leading to the split and rapid spread of Iranians Indo-Aryan and Iranian. European proto-
and other peoples from the Andronovo culture dialects like Pre-Germanic, Pre-Celtic, Pre-
and the Bactria-Margiana Complex over much Italic, and Pre-Balto-Slavic differentiate
of Central Asia, Northern India, Iran and from each other. Anatolian languages like
Eastern Anatolia. Greek Darg Ages and Hittite and Luwian are written down; Indo-
flourishing of the Hittite Empire. Pre-Celtic Iranian attested through Mitanni; a Greek
Unetice culture. dialect, Mycenaean, is already spoken.
ca. 1500-1000 BC. The Nordic Bronze Age sees Celtic, Italic, Germanic, Baltic and Slavic are
the rise of the Germanic Urnfield and the Celtic already different proto-languages,
Hallstatt cultures in Central Europe, developing in turn different dialects. Iranian
introducing the Iron Age. Italic peoples move to and other related southern dialects expand
the Italian Peninsula. Rigveda composed. through military conquest, and Indo-Aryan
Decline of Hittite Kingdoms and the Mycenaean spreads in the form of its sacred language,
civilisation. Sanskrit.
ca. 1000-500 BC. Northern Europe enters the Celtic dialects spread over western Europe,
Pre-Roman Iron Age. Early Indo-European German dialects to the south of Jutland. Italic
Kingdoms and Empires in Eurasia. In Europe, languages in the Italian Peninsula. Greek
Classical Antiquity begins with the flourishing and Old Italic alphabets appear. Late
of the Greek peoples. Foundation of Rome. Anatolian dialects. Cimmerian, Scythian and
Sarmatian in Asia, Palaeo-Balkan languages
in the Balkans.

67
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

1.5. OTHER ARCHAEOLINGUISTIC THEORIES

1.5.1. The most known new alternative theory concerning PIE is the Glottalic
theory. It assumes that Proto-Indo-European was pronounced more or less like
Armenian, i.e. instead of PIE *p, *b, *bh, the pronunciation would have been *p’, *p,
*b, and the same with the other two voiceless-voiced-voiced aspirated series of
consonants usually reconstructed. The IE Urheimat would have been then located
in the surroundings of Anatolia, especially near Lake Urmia, in northern Iran, hence
the archaism of Anatolian dialects and the glottalics found in Armenian.
NOTE. Those linguistic and archaeological findings are supported by Gamkredlize-Ivanov
(“The early history of Indo-European languages”, Scientific American, 1990) where early
Indo-European vocabulary deemed “of southern regions” is examined, and similarities with
Semitic and Kartvelian languages are also brought to light.
This theory is generally rejected; Beekes (1995) for all: “But this theory is in fact very
improbable. The presumed loan-words are difficult to evaluate, because in order to do so the
Semitic words and those of other languages would also have to be evaluated. The names of
trees are notoriously unreliable as evidence. The words for panther, lion and elephant are
probably incorrectly reconstructed as PIE words.”
1.5.2. Alternative theories include:
I. The European Homeland thesis maintains that the common origin of the IE
languages lies in Europe. These hypotheses are often driven by archeological
theories. A. Häusler (Die Indoeuropäisierung Griechenlands, Slovenska
Archeológia 29, 1981; etc.) continues to defend the hypothesis that places Indo-
European origins in Europe, stating that all the known differentiation emerged in
the continuum from the Rhin to the Urals.
NOTE. It has been traditionally located in 1) Lithuania and the surrounding areas, by R.G.
Latham (1851) and Th. Poesche (Die Arier. Ein Beitrag zur historischen Anthropologie,
1878); 2) Scandinavia, by K.Penka (Origines ariacae, 1883); 3) Central Europe, by G.
Kossinna (“Die Indogermanische Frage archäologisch beantwortet”, Zeitschrift für
Ethnologie, 34, 1902), P.Giles (The Aryans, 1922), and by linguist/archaeologist G. Childe
(The Aryans. A Study of Indo-European Origins, 1926).

a. The Paleolithic Continuity theory posits that the advent of IE languages should
be linked to the arrival of Homo sapiens in Europe and Asia from Africa in the Upper
Paleolithic. The PCT proposes a continued presence of Pre-IE and non-IE peoples
and languages in Europe from Paleolithic times, allowing for minor invasions and
infiltrations of local scope, mainly during the last three millennia.

68
 1. Introduction

NOTE. There are some research papers concerning the PCT available at
<http://www.continuitas.com/>. Also, the PCT could in turn be connected with Frederik
Kortlandt’s Indo-Uralic and Altaic studies <http://kortlandt.nl/publications/>.
On the temporal relationship question, Mallory–Adams (2007): “Although there are still
those who propose solutions dating back to the Palaeolithic, these cannot be reconciled with
the cultural vocabulary of the Indo-European languages. The later vocabulary of Proto-Indo-
European hinges on such items as wheeled vehicles, the plough, wool, which are attested in
Proto-Indo-European, including Anatolian. It is unlikely then that words for these items
entered the Proto-Indo-European lexicon prior to about 4000 BC.”
b. A new theory put forward by Colin Renfrew relates IE expansion to the Neolithic
revolution, causing the peacefully spreading of an older pre-IE language into
Europe from Asia Minor from around 7000 BC, with the advance of farming. It
proposes that the dispersal (discontinuity) of Proto-Indo-Europeans originated in
Neolithic Anatolia.
NOTE. Reacting to criticism, Renfrew by 1999 revised his proposal to the effect of taking a
pronounced Indo-Hittite position. Renfrew’s revised views place only Pre-Proto-Indo-
European in seventh millennium Anatolia, proposing as the homeland of Proto-Indo-
European proper the Balkans around 5000 BC, explicitly identified as the “Old European
culture” proposed by Gimbutas.
Mallory–Adams (2007): “(…) in both the nineteenth century and then again in the later
twentieth century, it was proposed that Indo-European expansions were associated with the
spread of agriculture. The underlying assumption here is that only the expansion of a new
more productive economy and attendant population expansion can explain the widespread
expansion of a language family the size of the Indo-European. This theory is most closely
associated with a model that derives the Indo-Europeans from Anatolia about the seventh
millennium BC from whence they spread into south-eastern Europe and then across Europe
in a Neolithic ‘wave of advance’.
(…) Although the difference between the Wave of Advance and Kurgan theories is quite
marked, they both share the same explanation for the expansion of the Indo-Iranians in Asia
(and there are no fundamental differences in either of their difficulties in explaining the
Tocharians), i.e. the expansion of mobile pastoralists eastwards and then southwards into
Iran and India. Moreover, there is recognition by supporters of the Neolithic theory that the
‘wave of advance’ did not reach the peripheries of Europe (central and western
Mediterranean, Atlantic and northern Europe) but that these regions adopted agriculture
from their neighbours rather than being replaced by them”.
Talking about these new hypotheses, Adrados–Bernabé–Mendoza (1995-1998) discuss the
relevance that is given to each new personal archaeological ‘revolutionary’ theory: “[The
hypothesis of Colin Renfrew (1987)] is based on ideas about the diffusion of agriculture from
Asia to Europe in [the fifth millennium Neolithic Asia Minor], diffusion that would be united
to that of Indo-Europeans; it doesn’t pay attention at all to linguistic data. The [hypothesis

69
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

of Gamkrelidze–Ivanov (1980, etc.)], which places the Homeland in the contact zone
between Caucasian and Semitic peoples, south of the Caucasus, is based on real or supposed
lexical loans; it disregards morphological data altogether, too. Criticism of these ideas – to
which people have paid too much attention – are found, among others, in Meid (1989), Villar
(1991), etc.”
II. Another hypothesis, contrary to the European ones, also mainly driven today
by nationalistic or religious views, traces back the origin of PIE to Vedic Sanskrit,
postulating that this is very pure, and that the origin of common Proto-Indo-
European can thus be traced back to the Indus Valley Civilisation of ca. 3000 BC.
NOTE. Pan-Sanskritism was common among early Indo-Europeanists, as Schlegel, Young,
A. Pictet (Les origines indoeuropéens, 1877) or Schmidt (who preferred Babylonia), but are
now mainly supported by those who consider Sanskrit almost equal to Late Proto-Indo-
European. For more on this, see S. Misra (The Aryan Problem: A Linguistic Approach,
1992), Elst (Update on the Aryan Invasion Debate, 1999), followed up by S.G. Talageri (The
Rigveda: A Historical Analysis, 2000), both part of “Indigenous Indo-Aryan” viewpoint by
N. Kazanas, the “Out of India” theory, with a framework dating back to the times of the Indus
Valley Civilisation.

1.6. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LANGUAGES

1.6.1. Many higher-level relationships between PIE and other language families
have been proposed, but these speculative connections are highly controversial.
Perhaps the most widely accepted proposal is of an Indo-Uralic family,
encompassing PIE and Proto-Uralic, a language from which Hungarian, Finnish,
Estonian, Saami and a number of other languages belong. The evidence usually cited
in favour of this is the proximity of the proposed Urheimaten for both of them, the
typological similarity between the two languages, and a number of apparent shared
morphemes.
NOTE. Other proposals, further back in time (and correspondingly less accepted), model
PIE as a branch of Indo-Uralic with a Caucasian substratum; link PIE and Uralic with Altaic
and certain other families in Asia, such as Korean, Japanese, Chukotko-Kamchatkan and
Eskimo-Aleut (representative proposals are Greenberg’s Eurasiatic and its proposed parent-
language Nostratic); etc.
1.6.2. Indo-Uralic or Uralo-Indo-European is therefore a hypothetical language
family consisting of Indo-European and Uralic (i.e. Finno-Ugric and Samoyedic).
Most linguists still consider this theory speculative and its evidence insufficient to
conclusively prove genetic affiliation.
NOTE. The problem with lexical evidence is to weed out words due to borrowing, because
Uralic languages have been in contact with Indo-European languages for millennia, and
consequently borrowed many words from them.

70
 1. Introduction

Björn Collinder, author of the path-breaking Comparative Grammar of the Uralic

Languages (1960), a standard work in the field of Uralic studies, argued for the
kinship of Uralic and Indo-European (1934, 1954, 1965).
The most extensive attempt to establish sound correspondences between Indo-
European and Uralic to date is that of the late Slovenian linguist Bojan Čop. It was
published as a series of articles in various academic journals from 1970 to 1989
under the collective title Indouralica. The topics to be covered by each article were
sketched out at the beginning of “Indouralica II”. Of the projected 18 articles only 11
appeared. These articles have not been collected into a single volume and thereby
remain difficult to access.
Dutch linguist Frederik Kortlandt supports a model of Indo-Uralic in which its
speakers lived north of the Caspian Sea, and Proto-Indo-Europeans began as a
group that branched off westward from there to come into geographic proximity
with the Northwest Caucasian languages, absorbing a Northwest Caucasian lexical
blending before moving farther westward to a region north of the Black Sea where
their language settled into canonical Proto-Indo-European.
1.6.3. The most common arguments in favour of a relationship between PIH and
Uralic are based on seemingly common elements of morphology, such as:

Meaning PIE Proto-Uralic

‘I, me’ *me ‘me’ (Acc.), *mene ‘my’ (Gen.) *mun, *mina ‘I’
‘you’ (sg) *tu (Nom.), *twe (Acc.), *tewe ‘your’ (Gen.) *tun, *tina
1st P. singular *-m *-m
1st P. plural *-me *-me
2nd P. singular *-s (active), *-tHa (perfect) *-t
2nd P. plural *-te *-te
Demonstrative *so ‘this, he/she’ (animate nom) *ša (3rd person singular)
Interr. pron. (An.) *kwi- ‘who?, what?’; *kwo- ‘who?, what?’ *ken ‘who?’, *ku-,
‘who?’
Relative pronoun *jo- *-ja (nomen agentis)
Accusative *-m *-m
Ablative/partitive *-od *-ta
Nom./Acc. plural *-es (Nom. pl.), *-m̥-s (Acc. pl.) *-t
Oblique plural *-i (pronomin. pl., cf. *we-i- ‘we’, *to-i- *-i
‘those’)
Dual *-H₁ *-k
Stative *-s- (aorist); *-es-, *-t (stative substantive) *-ta

71
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

Negative particle *nei, *ne *ei- [negative verb] , *ne

‘to give’ *deh3- *toHe-
‘to wet’,’water’ *wed- ‘to wet’, *wodr̥- ‘water’ *weti ‘water’
‘water” *mesg- ‘dip under water, dive’ *muśke- ‘wash’
‘to assign’, *nem- ‘to assign, to allot’, *h1nomn̥- ‘name’ *nimi ‘name’
‘name’
‘metal’ *h2weseh2- ‘gold’ *waśke ‘some metal’
‘trade’ *mei- ‘exchange’ *miHe- ‘give, sell’
‘fish’ *(s)kwalo- ‘large fish’ *kala ‘fish’
‘sister-in-law’ *galou- ‘husband's sister’ *kälɜ ‘sister-in-law’
‘much’ *polu- ‘much’ *paljɜ ‘thick, much’

1.7. INDO-EUROPEAN DIALECTS

SCHLEICHER’S FABLE: FROM PIE TO MODERN ENGLISH

The so-called Schleicher's fable is a poem composed in PIE, published by August
Schleicher in 1868, originally named “The Sheep and the Horses”. It is written here
in the different reconstructible IE dialects for comparison.
Translation: « The Sheep and the Horses. • A sheep that had no wool • saw horses, • one
pulling a heavy wagon, • one carrying a big load, • and one carrying a man quickly. • The
sheep said to the horses: • “My heart pains me, • seeing a man driving horses”. • The horses
said: “Listen, sheep, • our hearts pain us when we see this: • a man, the master, makes the
wool of the sheep • into a warm garment for himself. • And the sheep has no wool”. • Having
heard this, the sheep fled into the plain. »
Proto-Indo-Hittite ca. 3500? BC Common Anatolian (Proto-Anatolian
dialect) , ca. 2500 BC
h2owis h1ekwōs-kwe. Howis ekwōs-kwu.
h2owis (h)josmi wl̥h1neh2 ne-h1est Howis josmi ulhneh ne est,
h1ekwoms dedorke, ekwons dedorke,
tom gwr̥h3úm woghom wéghontm̥, tom gwurrúm wogom wégontm̥,
tom megeh2m bhorom, tom megehm borom,
tom dhh1ghmonm̥ h1oh1ku bhérontm̥. tom dgomonm̥ oku bérontm̥.
h2owis h1ékwobhos weukwét: Howis ékwobos wūkwét:
“kērd h2éghnutoi h1moí, “Kr̥di xégnutor moi,
widn̥téi dhh1ghmonm̥ h1ekwoms h2égontm̥”. dgomonm̥ ekwons xégontm̥ widn̥tę”.
h1ekwōs weukwónt: “klu h2owi! Ekwōs wūkwónt: “Klu, howi!
kērd h2éghnutoi n̥sméi widn̥tbhós: kr̥di hegnutor n̥smę widn̥tbós:
dhh1ghmōn, potis, h2owjom-r̥ wl̥h1neh2m̥ dgomōn, potis, howjom-r̥ ulhnehm̥
swebhei gwhormom westrom kwr̥neuti. swebę gwermom wéstrom kwr̥nūdi.
h2owjom-kwe wl̥hneh2 ne h1esti”. Howjomkwu ulhneh ne esti”.
tod kekluwṓs h2owis h2egrom bhugét. Tod kekluwṓs howis hegrom bugét.

72
 1. Introduction

North-West IE (Northern Late IE

dialect), ca. 2500 BC Literal English gloss
Owis ekwōs-kwe. (the)sheep (the)horses-and.
Owis josmi wl̥nā ne est, (a)sheep (on)which wool not-is
ekwons dedorke, horses saw,
tom gwrawúm woghom wéghontm̥, one(of-them) (a) heavy wagon pulling,
tom megām bhorom, one(of-them) (a)big load,
tom ghomonom ōkú bhérontm̥. one(of-them) (a)human quickly carrying.
Owis ékwobhos weukwét: (the)sheep (to the)horses said:
“Kr̥di ághnutor moi, “ (the)heart is-hurt me,
ghomonom ekwons ágontm̥ widn̥téi”. (a)human horses driving seeing”.
Ekwōs weukwónt: “Kl̥néu, owi! (the)horses said: “listen, sheep
kr̥di ághnutor n̥sméi widn̥tbhós: (the)heart pains us seeing:
ghomonos, potis, owjos wl̥nām (a)man, (the)master, (of)sheep wool
sebhei gwhormom westrom kwr̥neuti. himself (a)warm garment make.
Owjomkwe wl̥nā ne esti”. (to-the)sheep-and wool not is”.
Tod kekluwṓs owis agrom bhugét. this having-heard, (the)sheep (to-the)plain

NOTE. These versions of early Indo-Hittite, Anatolian, and early LIE dialects (NWIE, PII,
PGk) fit prof. Biltoo’s version of Schleicher’s fable, with the vocabulary and expressions that
appear in Prometheus (2012) and in its deleted scenes and script. As in any other language,
there are a dozen ways to say almost the same in PIE, with combinations of synonyms, lexical
and verbal periphrases, etc. This is just one of the possible translations of Schleicher’s poem.

Proto-Indo-Iranian (Southern Late IE Proto-Greek (Southern Late IE dialect,

dialect, ca. 2500 BC) ca. 2500 BC)
Awis aķwāsḳa. Owis ekwoi-kwe.
Awis, jasmi wr̥nā na āst, Ówis, josmi wlānā ne ēst,
aķwans dadarka, ekwons dedorke,
tam gurúm waģham wáģhantm̥, tom kwarúm wokhom wekhontm̥,
tam maģham bharam, tom megām phorom,
tam ģhámanam āķu bharantm̥. tom khthómonm̥ ōku phérontm̥.
Awis áķwabhjas áwaukat: Ówis ékwophos éweukwet:
“Ķr̥di ághnutai mai, “Kr̥di ákhnutoi moi,
ģhámanam aķwans aģantam widn̥tái”. khthómonm̥ ekwons ágontm̥ widn̥téi”.
Áķwās áwaukant: “Ķr̥nudhí avi! Ékwoi éweukwont: “Kl̥nuthi, owi!
ķr̥d ághnutai n̥smái widn̥tbhjás: kr̥di ágnutoi n̥sméi widn̥tphós:
ģhámanas, patis, awjas wr̥nām khthómōn, potis, owjos wlānām
swabhi gharmam wastram kr̥nauti. sephei kwhermom westrom kwr̥neuti.
Awjamḳa wr̥nā na asti”. Owjom-kwe wlānā ne esti”.
Tat ķaķruws awis aģram ábhugat. Tot kekluwṓs owis agrom éphuget.

73
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

Proto-Celtic (North-West IE dialect, Proto-Italic (North-West IE dialect,

ca. 1000 BC) ca. 1000 BC)
Owis ekwoikwe. Owis ekwoikwe.
Owis, josmi wlanā ne est, Owis, josmi wlānā ne est,
ekwōs dedarke, ekwōs dedorke,
tom barúm woxom wéxontam, tom grāwúm woxom wéxontem,
tom megam borom, tom megam φorom,
tom dxonjom āku berontam. tom xomonem ōku φerontem.
Owis nu ékwobos weukwét: Owis nu ékwoφos weukwét:
“Kridi áxnutor mai, “Kordi áxnutor mei,
ekwōs ágontom wīróm widantí”. ekwōs ágontom wīróm widentéi”.
Ekwoi tu wewkwónt: “Kalnéu, owi! Ekwoi tu wewkwónt: “Kalnéu, owi!
kridi áxnutor ansméi widantbós: kordi axnutor ensméi widentφós:
neros, φotis, owjom ar wlanām neros, potis, owjom ar wlānām
sebi gwormom westrom kwarneuti. seφei ghormom westrom kworneuti.
Owjomkwe wlanā ne esti”. Owjomkwe wlānā ne esti”.
Tod kekluwṓs owis agrom bugét. Tud kekluwṓs owis agrom φugít.

Pre-Proto-Germanic (North-West IE Proto-Balto-Slavic (North-West IE

dialect, ca. 1000 BC) dialect, ca. 1000 BC)
Awiz exwazxwe. Awis eḳwōskje.
Awiz, jasmi wulnō ne est, Awis, jasmi wilnā ne est,
exwanz dedurke, eḳwas dedirke,
þan karún wagan wéganðun, tan grun waġan wéġantun,
þan mekon baran, tan megan baran,
þan gúmanan āxu béranðun. tan ġmanan ōku bérantun
Awiz nu éxwamaz weuxwéð: Awis nu eḳwamas wjaukjét:
“Hurti ágnuðai mei, “Ḳirdi ágnutei mei,
exwanz ákanðun werán witanðī”. ekwans ágantun wirán widuntéi”.
Exwaz tu wewxwant: “Hulnéu, awi! Eḳwōs tu wjaukunt: “Kludí, awi!
hurti áknuðai unsmí witunðmáz: ḳirdi ágnutei insméi widūntmás:
neraz, faþiz, awjan ar wulnōn neras, patis, awjam ar wilnān
sibī warman wesþran hwurneuþi. sebi gormom westran kjirnjautĭ.
Awjanxwe wulnō ne isti”. Áwjamkje wilnā ne esti”.
Þat hexluwz awiz akran bukéþ. Ta kjekluwṓs awis agram bugít.

74
 1. Introduction

1.7.1. NORTHERN INDO-EUROPEAN DIALECTS

I. NORTH-WEST INDO-EUROPEAN
1. North-West Indo-European was probably spoken in Europe in the centuries on
either side of ca. 2500 BC, including Pre-Celtic, Pre-Italic, Pre-Germanic, Pre-
Baltic, and Pre-Slavic, among other ancestors of IE languages attested in Europe.
Its original common location is usually traced back to “some place to the East of the
Rhine, to the North of the Alps and the Carpathian Mountains, to the South of
Scandinavia and to the East of the Eastern European Lowlands or Russian Plain,
not beyond Moscow” (Adrados–Bernabé–Mendoza 1995-1998).
2. The Corded Ware (also Battle Axe or Single Grave) complex of cultures,
traditionally represents for many scholars the arrival of the first speakers of
Northern LIE in central Europe, coming from the Yamna culture. The complex dates
from about 3200-2300 BC. The Globular Amphorae culture may be slightly earlier,
but the relationship between these cultures remains unclear.

Generalized distribution of all Corded Ware variants (ca. 3200-2300 BC), with
adjacent third millennium cultures. Mallory–Adams (1997). The Globular Amphora
culture (ca. 3400-2800 BC) overlaps with the early territory of the Corded Ware
culture (ca. 3200-2800 BC), which later expanded to east and west. (2011, modified
from Dbachmann 2005)

NOTE. From a linguistic-archaeological point of view, Beekes (1995): “The combined use
of the horse and the ox-drawn wagon made the Indo-Europeans exceptionally mobile. It is
therefore not surprising that they were able to migrate over such a very large area after
having first taken possession of the steppes (…). It has long been assumed that the Corded
Ware culture (from 3300 to 2300 B.C., in German the ‘Schnurkeramiker’ of which the Battle

75
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

Axe culture, the Single Grave Folk, the East Baltic and the Fatyanovo culture on the upper
reaches of the Volga are all variants) from the middle Dniepr region and the upper Volga as
far as Scandinavia and Holland, was developed by an Indo-European people. They would
seem to have been nomads, their society was warlike, and they introduced both the horse
and wagon. We find them in Holland as early as 3000 B.C., where they are clearly
immigrants, and it is here that the earliest wheels of western Europe have been found. There
is a problem in the fact that this culture is very early indeed when compared to the Yamnaya
culture (3600-2200 B.C., although the Yamnaya may be still older), but the central problem
is the origin of Corded Ware. The Globular Amphorae culture (‘Kugelamphoren’ in German)
preceded that of the Corded Ware (as of 3500 B.C.) in roughly the same area, though it
extended in a more southerly direction and reached as far as the middle Dniepr and the
Dniestr. The relation between this culture and the Corded Ware culture is not clear, but it
does seem probable that there was a relationship of some kind.”
Mallory–Adams (2007): “Many of the language groups of Europe, i.e. Celtic, Germanic,
Baltic, and Slavic, may possibly be traced back to the Corded Ware horizon of northern,
central, and eastern Europe that flourished c. 3200-2300 BC. Some would say that the Iron
Age cultures of Italy might also be derived from this cultural tradition. For this reason the
Corded Ware culture is frequently discussed as a prime candidate for early Indo-European.”
Anthony (2007) gives a detailed account of archaeological events: “The Corded Ware
horizon spread across most of northern Europe, from Ukraine to Belgium, after 3000 BCE,
with the initial rapid spread happening mainly between 2900 and 2700 BCE. The defining
traits of the Corded Ware horizon were a pastoral, mobile economy that resulted in the near
disappearance of settlement sites (much like Yamnaya in the steppes), the almost universal
adoption of funeral rituals involving single graves under mounds (like Yamnaya), the
diffusion of stone hammer-axes probably derived from Polish TRB [=Funnelbeaker] styles,
and the spread of a drinking culture linked to particular kinds of cord-decorated cups and
beakers, many of which had local stylistic prototypes in variants of TRB ceramics. The
material culture of the Corded Ware horizon was mostly native to northern Europe, but the
underlying behaviors were very similar to those of the Yamnaya horizon, the broad adoption
of a herding economy based on mobility (using oxdrawn wagons and horses), and a
corresponding rise in the ritual prestige and value oflivestock. The economy and political
structure of the Corded Ware horizon certainly was influenced by what had emerged earlier
in the steppes(…).
The Yamnaya and Corded Ware horizons bordered each other in the hills between Lvov
and Ivano-Frankovsk, Ukraine, in the upper Dniester piedmont around 2800-2600 BCE (see
figure). At that time early Corded Ware cemeteries were confined to the uppermost
headwaters of the Dniester west of Lvov, the same territory that had earlier been occupied
by the late TRB communities infiltrated by late Tripolye groups. If Corded Ware societies in
this region evolved from local late TRB origins, as many believe, they might already have
spoken an Indo-European language. Between 2700 and 2600 BCE Corded Ware and late
Yamnaya herders met each other on the upper Dniester over cups of mead or beer. This
meeting was another opportunity for language shift (…). The wide-ranging pattern of

76
 1. Introduction

interaction that the Corded Ware horizon inaugurated across northern Europe provided an
optimal medium for language spread. Late Proto-Indo-European languages penetrated the
eastern end of this medium, either through the incorporation of Indo-European dialects in
the TRB base population before the Corded Ware horizon evolved, or through Corded Ware-
Yamnaya contacts later, or both. Indo-European speech probably was emulated because the
chiefs who spoke it had larger herds of cattle and sheep and more horses than could be raised
in northern Europe, and they had a politico-religious culture already adapted to territorial
expansion.”
3. The Corded Ware horizon spans over centuries. Most linguists agree that
Northern LIE dialects shared a common origin within the original Yamnaya
territory (ca. 3500-2500 BC), and that North-West Indo-European was a close
linguistic community, already separated from Pre-Tocharian, during the time of the
first Corded Ware migrations (ca. 2900-2500 BC, in the Kurgan framework). After
that shared linguistic community, their speakers migrated to the east and west,
spreading over a huge territory, which turned into a European continuum of
different IE dialects in close contact.
4. The general internal linguistic division proposed for North-West Indo-
European includes a West European group, with Pre-Italic and Pre-Celtic, and an
East European group, comprising Pre-Baltic and Pre-Slavic. Pre-Germanic is
usually assumed to have belonged to the West European core, and to have had
contacts with East European later in time, into a loose Balto-Slavo-Germanic
community.
NOTE 1. Those who divide between Italo-Celto-Germanic and Balto-Slavic include e.g.:
Burrow (1955): “The Western group of Indo-European languages consisting of Italic, Celtic
and Germanic, is distinguished by certain common features in grammar and vocabulary,
which indicate a fairly close mutual connection in prehistoric times. These ties are
particularly close in the case of Italic and Celtic, even though they are not sufficient to justify
the theory of common Italo-Celtic.”
Kortlandt (1990): “If the speakers of the other satem languages can be assigned to the
Yamnaya horizon and the western Indo-Europeans to the Corded Ware horizon, it is
attractive to assign the ancestors of the Balts and the Slavs to the Middle Dnieper culture [an
eastern extension of the Corded Ware culture, of northern Ukraine and Belarus, see below
Indo-Iranian].”
Beekes (1995): “Probably the Corded Ware people were the predecessors of the Germanic,
Celtic and Italic peoples, and, perhaps, of the Balto-Slavic peoples as well.”
Adrados–Bernabé–Mendoza (1995-1998): “We think, to sum up, that a language more or
less common, between Celtic and Germanic, is plausible. And that in equally gradual terms,
but with a unity, if not complete, at least approximate, we should think the same for Baltic
and Slavic. Even though it is a theory that has awoken polemic discussions, with Meillet and

77
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

Senn as main representatives of the separation idea, Stang and Scherer of the unity; cf.
Untermann 1957, Birnbaum 1975 (…) still more dubious is in relation with Illyrian, Venetic,
etc. And models of more unitary ‘common languages’, like Indo-Iranian (…).”
Those who divide between Italo-Celtic and Balto-Slavo-Germanic:
Gamkrelidze–Ivanov (1993-1994), departing from an Anatolian homeland: “Especially
intense contacts at level 5 can be found between the Balto-Slavic-Germanic and Italic-Celtic
dialect areas. A long list of cognates can be adduced with lexical isoglosses reflecting close
historical interaction between these areas (see Meillet 1922) (…) New arrivals joined earlier
settlers to form an intermediate homeland shared by the tribes which later moved on to the
more western zones of Europe. This intermediate settlement area thus became a zone of
contacts and secondary rapprochements of dialects which had partially differentiated before
this. This is where the common lexical and semantic innovations were able to arise. (…) The
out-migration of the dialects from this secondary area - a secondary, or intermediate, proto-
homeland - to central and western Europe laid the foundation for the gradual rise of the
individual Italic, Celtic, Illyrian, Germanic, Baltic, and Slavic languages.”
Mallory–Adams (2007), who suppose an early separation of all European dialects
independently from the parent language: “A major group presumably created or maintained
by contact is labelled the North-West group and comprises Germanic, Baltic, and Slavic (as
one chain whose elements may have been in closer contact with one another), and
additionally Italic and Celtic. (…) The evidence suggests that this spread occurred at some
time before there were marked divisions between these languages so that these words appear
to have been ‘inherited’ from an early period”; also, “[t]here are so many of these words that
are confined within these five language groups (Celtic, Italic, Germanic, Baltic, and Slavic)
that most linguists would regard cognates found exclusively between any two or among all
of these groups as specifically North-West Indo-European and not demonstrably Proto-
Indo-European. To accept a series of cognates as reflections of a PIE word requires that the
evidence come from further afield than a series of contiguous language groups in Europe”;
and, “[t]he North-West European languages (Germanic, Baltic, Slavic, Celtic, Italic) shared
a series of common loanwords (probably created among themselves as well as derived from
some non-Indo-European source) at some period.”
This late continuum of closely related Northwestern IE languages has been linked
to the Old European (Alteuropäisch) of Krahe (Unsere ältesten Flußnamen, 1964;
Die Struktur der alteuropäischen Hydronymie, 1964), the language of the oldest
reconstructed stratum of European hydronymy in Central and Western Europe.
NOTE. This “Old European” is not to be confused with the term as used by Marija
Gimbutas, who applies it to Neolithic Europe. The character of these river names is Pre-
Germanic and Pre-Celtic, and dated by Krahe to ca. 2000 BC, although according to the
recent archaeological and linguistic studies, it should probably be deemed slightly earlier.
Old European river names are found in the Baltic and southern Scandinavia, in Central
Europe, France, the British Isles, and the Iberian and Italian peninsulas. This area is
associated with the spread of the later Western Indo-European dialects, the Celtic, Italic,

78
 1. Introduction

Germanic, Baltic, Slavic, and Illyrian branches. Notably exempt are the Balkans and Greece.
Krahe locates the geographical nucleus of this area as stretching from the Baltic across
Western Poland and Germany to the Swiss plateau and the upper Danube north of the Alps,
while he considers the Old European river names of southern France, Italy and Spain to be
later imports, replacing “Aegean-Pelasgian” and Iberian substrates, corresponding to Italic,
Celtic and Illyrian invasions from about 1300 BC.
Tovar (1977, 1979) combines the split of the Graeco-Aryan group with the development of
an ‘Old European’ language in Europe, which evolved into the historical languages attested.
Adrados (Arquelogía y diferenciación del indoeuropeo, Em. 47, 1979) assume, as we have
seen, a North-West Indo-European or Old European language (of ca. 2000 BC or earlier,
according to Krahe’s account). In his view, the western core (Italo-Celto-Germanic) is still a
unitary dialect in the late dialect continuum, while the eastern core (Pre-Balto-Slavic) is
another, closely related dialect. This grouping has been supported by the latest phylogenetic
studies (Atkinson et al. 2005, Holm 2008, v.s.). According to that view, the late North-West
Indo-European community would have been similar e.g. to the German or to the North-
Germanic dialect continua: a West European core (equivalent to the German and
Scandinavian cores), plus a more different East European or Pre-Balto-Slavic territory
(equivalent to Dutch, and to Icelandic, respectively).
About the identification of the North-West European dialect continuum with the “Old
European” concept, Adrados–Bernabé–Mendoza (1995-1998): “The IE languages of Europe
are all derived from [Late Indo-European]; most of them are [Northern dialects], Greek (and
Thracian, we think) are [Southern] dialects. The first ones “crystallised” late, ca. 1000 BC or
even later. But there are marks of earlier IE languages in Europe. Then a hypothesis results,
whereby an ancient IE language could have existed in Europe, previous to Baltic, Slavic,
Germanic, Latin, etc., a [Late Indo-European], or maybe an [Indo-Hittite] dialect.
This was put forward by the theory defended by Krahe (1964a, 1964b, among many
writings), in which the European hydronymy, because of its roots and suffixes, bears witness
to the existence of a European language previous to the differentiated languages (Germanic,
Celtic, etc.), which would have been born from it in a later date. This is the so-called “Old
European” (Alteuropäisch). We would have here a new intermediate language. For a defence
of its presence in [the Iberian] Peninsula, cf. de Hoz 1963.
We lack otherwise data to decide the dialectal classification of this hypothetical language
(the existence of a distinct feminine speaks in favour of a [LIE dialect]). Some names have
been proposed: Drava, Dravos; Druna, Dravina, Dravonus; Dravan-, Dravantia,
Druantia; Druta, Drutus. Or, to put other example, Sava, Savos; Savina; Savara, Savira;
Savintia; Savistas. In cases like these, the roots are clearly IE, the suffixes too. The thesis
that it is an IE language previous to the known ones seems correct, if we take into account
the huge time span between the arrival of Indo-Europeans to Europe (in the fourth
millennium BC) until the “crystallisation” of European languages, much more recent (…)
Therefore, the proposal of Schmid [(Alteuropäisch und Indogermanisch, 1968)], that the
“Old European” of Krahe is simply IE, cannot be accepted. Apart from the arguments of

79
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

Tovar in different publications, especially in Tovar 1979 and 1977, we have to add that in our
view this IE knew the opposition masc./fem. -os/-a (-yə), i.e. it [derived from LIE]. We have
to add Tovar’s corrections: we shouldn’t think about a unitary language, impossible without
political and administrative unity, but about a series of dialects more or less evolved which
clearly shared certain isoglosses. (…)
Indeed, all these discoveries, that took place in the 1950s and later, remain valid today, if
we place them within the history of [Late Indo-European]. We still have to broaden its base
by setting “Old European” (or more exactly its dialects) to the side of some IE languages
whose existence we trace back to Europe in a previous date to the formation of the big
linguistic groups that we know. They have left their marks not only in hydronymy (and
toponymy and onomastics in general), but also in the vocabulary of the later languages, and
even in languages that arrived to the historical age but are too badly attested; and, in any
case, they aren’t Celtic, nor Illyran, nor Venetic, nor any other historical dialect, but
independent and – we believe – older languages.
The investigation of “Old European” began precisely with the study of some toponymies
and personal names spread all over Europe, previously considered “Ligurian” (by H. d’Arbois
de Jubainville and C. Jullian) or “Illyrian” (by J. Pokorny), with which those linguistic groups
– in turn badly known – were given an excessive extension, based only on some lexical
coincidences. Today those hypotheses are abandoned, but the concept of “Old European” is
not always enough. It is commonly spoken about “Pre-Celtic” languages, because in
territories occupied by Celts toponyms and ethnic names have non-Celtic phonetics:
especially with initial p (Parisii, Pictones, Pelendones, Palantia); there are also, in the Latin
of those regions, loans of the same kind (so Paramus in Hispania).
In [the Iberian] Peninsula, more specifically, it has been proposed that peoples like the
Cantabri, Astures, Pellendones, Carpetani and Vettones were possibly of Pre-Celtic language
(cf. Tovar 1949:12). More closed is the discussion around Lusitanian (…)” (see below).
5. Linguists have pointed out ancient language contacts of Italic with Celtic; Celtic
with Germanic; Germanic with Balto-Slavic. Southern dialectal isoglosses affect
Balto-Slavic and Tocharian, and only partially Germanic and Latin.
NOTE. According to Adrados–Bernabé–Mendoza (1995-1998): “One has to distinguish, in
this huge geographical space, different locations. We have already talked about the situation
of Germans to the West, and by their side, Celtic, Latin and Italic speakers; Balts and Slavs
to the East, the former to the North of the later. See, among others, works by Bonfante (1983,
1984), about the old location of Baltic and Slavic-speaking communities. Isoglosses of
different chronology let us partially reconstruct the language history. Note that the output
obtained with phonetics and morphology match up essentially those of Porzig, who worked
with lexica.”
Celtic too shares isoglosses with Southern dialects, according to Meier-Brügger (2003):
“Celtic contacts with eastern Indo-Europe are ancient. Compare the case, among others, of
relative pronouns, which in Celtic, contrarily to the Italic *kwo-/*kwi-, is represented by *Hi̯o-
, a characteristic that it shares with Greek, Phrygian, Indo-Iranian and Slavic.”

80
 1. Introduction

Against the inclusion of Pre-Latin IE within West Indo-European, there are some
archaeological and linguistic theories (Szemerényi, Colin Renfrew; v.s. for J.P. Mallory);
Polomé (“The Dialectal Position of Germanic within West-Indo-European”, Proc. of the 13th
Int. Congress of Linguists, Tokyo, 1983) and Schmidt (1984, reviewed in Adrados–Bernabé–
Mendoza, 1995-1998) argued that innovations common to Celtic and Germanic came from a
time when Latin peoples had already migrated to the Italian peninsula, i.e. later than those
common to Celtic, Latin and Germanic.
On the unity of Proto-Italic and Proto-Latin, Adrados–Bernabé–Mendoza (1995-1998):
“dubious is the old unity scheme, no doubt only partial, between Latin and Osco-Umbrian,
which has been rejected by famous Italian linguists, relating every coincidence to recent
contacts. I am not so sure about that, as the common innovations are big; cf. Beeler 1966,
who doesn’t however dispel the doubts. Obviously, according to the decision taken, there are
different historical consequences. If one thinks that both linguistic groups come from the
North, through the Alps (cf. Tovar 1950), from the end of the 2nd millennium, a previous
unity can be proposed. But authors like Devoto (1962) or Szemerényi (1962) made Latin
peoples come from the East, through Apulia.” There has been a continued archaeological and
(especially) linguistic support by mainstream IE studies to the derivation of Italic (and Latin)
from a West Indo-European core, even after critics to the old Italo-Celtic concept (C. Watkins
Italo-Celtic Revisited, 1963, K.H. Schmidt Latein und Keltisch, 1986); see Porzig (Die
Gliederung des indogermanischen Sprachgebiets, 1954), Dressler (“Über die
Reknostruktion der idg. Syntax”, KZ 85, 1971), Tovar (1970), Pisani (Indogermanisch und
Europa, 1974), Bonfante (“Il celtibèrico, il cèltico e l’indoeuropeo” in RALinc., ser. VIII 1983;
“La protopatria degli Slavi”, in Accademia Polaca delle Scienze, Conferenze 89, 1984),
Adrados–Bernabé–Mendoza (1995-1998), etc.; on the archaeological question, see
Ghirshman (L’Iran et la migration des indo-aryens et des iraniens, 1977), Thomas
(“Archaeological Evidence for the Migrations of the Indo-Europeans”, in Polomé (ed.)
1984), Gimbutas (“Primary and Secondary homeland of the Indo-Europeans”, JIES 13,
1985), etc.
On Meillet’s Italo-Celtic, it appears today that the idea is rejected by a majority of scholars,
on the grounds of shared isoglosses which do not conform a community (cf. e.g. Watkins
1966). However, some common elections do reflect that both linguistic domains could in
ancient times penetrate each other (Adrados–Bernabé–Mendoza 1995-1998). Recent
publications (Gamkrelidze–Ivanov 1994-1995, Kortlandt 2007, etc.), as well as quantitative
studies (see above §1.4.3) classify Italic and Celtic within the same branch, although
sometimes as a West group including a late Italo-Germanic or Celto-Germanic subgroup.
NOTE 3. Today, the contacts between Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian are usually classified
as from a late ‘areal’ contact or Sprachbund, or some sort of late North-West–East
continuum (so e.g. in Kortlandt 1990, Mallory 1989, Adrados–Bernabé–Mendoza 1995-
1998, West 2007, Anthony 2007); e.g. Mallory–Adams (2007): “The Indo-Iranian and Balto-
Slavic languages share both satemisation and the ruki-rule and may have developed as some
form of west–east (or northwest–south-east) continuum with certain features running
through them” (see below Indo-Iranian).

81
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

6. The Germanic homeland is usually traced back to the Nordic Late Neolithic in
Scandinavia, still in contact with the Italo-Celtic homeland in Central Europe
(Proto-Únětice?); the Late Corded Ware groups to the east probably represent the
Balto-Slavic homeland. Beekes (1995), Adrados–Bernabé–Mendoza (1995-1998),
etc.
Eurasian cultures in 2000 BC, after the disintegration of IEDs.

Haywood et
al. The
Cassell Atlas
of World
History.
(1997) (2011,
modified
from
Briangotts
2009)

82
 1. Introduction

A. GERMANIC

The largest Germanic

languages are English
and German, with ca.
340 and some 120
million native
speakers, respectively.
Other significant
languages include Low
Germanic dialects (like
Dutch) and the Germanic languages as first language of the majority
(dark colour) or official language of the country (light
Scandinavian languages. colour). (2011, modified from Shardz-Hayden 2010)
Their common ancestor is Proto-Germanic, probably still spoken in the mid-1st
millennium B.C. in Iron Age Northern Europe, since its separation from an earlier
Pre-Proto-Germanic, a Northern Indo-European dialect dated ca. 1500-500 BC.
The succession of archaeological horizons suggests that before their language
differentiated into the individual Germanic branches the Proto-Germanic speakers
lived in southern Scandinavia and along the coast from the Netherlands in the west
to the Vistula in the east around 750 BC. Early Germanic dialects enter history with
the Germanic peoples who settled in northern Europe along the borders of the
Roman Empire from the second century AD.
NOTE. A few surviving inscriptions in a runic script from Scandinavia dated to ca. 200 are
thought to represent a later stage of Proto-Norse; according to Bernard Comrie, it represents
a Late Common Germanic which followed the “Proto-Germanic” stage. Several historical
linguists have pointed towards the apparent material and social continuity connecting the
cultures of the Nordic Bronze Age (1800-500 BC) and the Pre-Roman Iron Age (500 BC - AD
1) as having implications in regard to the stability and later development of the Germanic
language group. Lehmann (1977) writes: “Possibly the most important conclusion based on
archeological evidence with relevance for linguistic purposes is the assumption of ‘one huge
cultural area’ which was undisturbed for approximately a thousand years, roughly from
1500-500 BC Such a conclusion in a stable culture permits inferences concerning linguistic
stability, which are important for an interpretation of the Germanic linguistic data.”
The earliest evidence of the Germanic branch is recorded from names in the first
century by Tacitus, and in a single instance in the second century BC, on the Negau
helmet. From roughly the second century AD, some speakers of early Germanic
dialects developed the Elder Futhark. Early runic inscriptions are also largely
limited to personal names, and difficult to interpret. The Gothic language was

83
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

written in the Gothic alphabet developed by Bishop Ulfilas for his translation of the
Bible in the fourth century. Later, Christian priests and monks who spoke and read
Latin in addition to their native Germanic tongue began writing the Germanic
languages with slightly modified Latin letters, but in Scandinavia, runic alphabets
remained in common use throughout the Viking Age.
The so-called Grimm’s law is a set of statements describing the inherited North-
West Indo-
European stops
as they developed
in Pre-Proto-
Germanic. As it is Negau helmet. It reads (from right to left):
presently ///
harikastiteiva\\\ip, “Harigast the priest”. (PD, n.d.)
formulated,
Grimm’s Law consists of three parts, which must be thought of as three consecutive
phases in the sense of a chain shift:
• Voiceless stops change to PGmc. voiceless fricatives: p→*f, t→*θ, k→*x,
kw→*xw.
• Voiced stops become PGmc. voiceless stops: b→*p, d→*t, g→*k, gw→*kw.
• Voiced aspirated stops lose their aspiration and change into plain voiced
stops: bh→*b, dh→*d, gh→*g, gwh→*gw,*g,*w.
Verner’s Law addresses a category of exceptions, stating that unvoiced fricatives
are voiced when preceded by an unaccented syllable: PGmc. *s→*z, *f→*v, *θ→*ð;
as, NWIE bhratēr → PGmc. *brōþēr ‘brother’, but NWIE mātḗr → PGmc. *mōðēr
‘mother’.
NOTE 1. W. P. Lehmann (1961) considered that Jacob Grimm’s “First Germanic Sound
Shift”, or Grimm’s Law and Verner's Law, which pertained mainly to consonants and were
considered for a good many decades to have generated Proto-Germanic, were Pre-Proto-
Germanic, and that the “upper boundary” was the fixing of the accent, or stress, on the root
syllable of a word, typically the first. Proto-Indo-European had featured a moveable pitch
accent comprising “an alternation of high and low tones” as well as stress of position
determined by a set of rules based on the lengths of the word's syllables.
The fixation of the stress led to sound changes in unstressed syllables. For Lehmann, the
“lower boundary” was the dropping of final -a or -e in unstressed syllables; for example, PIE
woid-á >, Goth. wait, “knows” (the > and < signs in linguistics indicate a genetic descent).
Antonsen (1965) agreed with Lehmann about the upper boundary but later found runic

84
 1. Introduction

evidence that the -a was not dropped: Gmc. ékwakraz ... wraita ‘I wakraz ... wrote (this)’.
He says: “We must therefore search for a new lower boundary for Proto-Germanic”.
NOTE 2. Sometimes the shift produced
allophones (consonants that were
pronounced differently) depending on the
context of the original. With regard to
original PIE k and kw, Trask (2000) says
that the resulting PGmc. *x and *xw were
reduced to *h and *hw in word-initial
position. Consonants were lengthened or
prolonged under some circumstances,
appearing in some daughter languages as
geminated graphemes. Kraehenmann
(2003) states that Proto-Germanic already
had long consonants, but they contrasted
with short ones only word-medially.
Moreover, they were not very frequent and
occurred only intervocally almost
Nordic Bronze Age culture (ca. 1200 BC),
exclusively after short vowels. The Harper Atlas of World History (1993, PD)
phonemes *b, *d, *g and *gw, says Ringe
(2006) were stops in some environments and fricatives in others.
Effects of the aforementioned sound laws include the following examples:
• p→f: pods, foot, cf. PGmc. fōts; cf. Goth. fōtus, O.N. fōtr, O.E. fōt, O.H.G. fuoz.
• t→þ,ð: tritjós, third, cf. PGmc. þriðjaz; cf. Goth. þridja, O.N. þriðe, O.E. þridda,
O.H.G. dritto.
• k→x,h: kwon, dog, cf. PGmc. xunðaz; cf. Goth. hunds, O.N. hundr, O.E. hund,
O.H.G. hunt.
• kw→xw,hw: kwos, what, who, cf. Gmc. hwoz; cf. Goth. hwas, O.N. hverr, O.S.
hwe, O.E. hwā, O.Fris. hwa, O.H.G. hwër.
• b→p: werbō, throw, cf. Gmc. werpō; cf. Goth. wairpan, O.S. werpan, O.N.
verpa, O.E. weorpan, M.L.G., Du. werpen, Ger. werfen.
• d→t: dekm̥, ten, cf. Gmc. tehun; cf. Goth. taihun, O.S. tehan, O.N. tiu, O.Fris.
tian, O.Du. ten, O.H.G. zehan.
• g→k: gelu, ice, cf. Gmc. kaldaz; cf. Goth. kalds, O.N. kaldr, O.E. cald, O.H.G.
kalt.
• gw→kw: gwīwós, alive, cf. Gmc. kwi(k)waz; cf. Goth. kwius, O.N. kvikr, O.E.
cwic, O.H.G. quec.

85
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

• bh→b: bhrātēr, brother, cf. Gmc. brōþēr; cf. Goth. bróþar, O.N. brōþir, O.E.
brōþor, O.H.G. bruoder.
• dh→d: dhworis, door, cf. Gmc. duriz; cf. Goth. daúr, O.N. dyrr, O.E duru,
O.H.G. turi.
• gh→g: ghansis, goose, cf. Gmc. gansiz; cf. Goth gansus, O.N. gās, O.E. gōs,
O.H.G. gans.
• gwh→gw/g/w: gwhormos, warm, cf. Gmc. warmaz; cf. O.N. varmr, O.E.
wearm, O.H.G. warm. For gwhondos, fight, cf. Gmc. gandaz; cf. Goth. gunþs,
O.N. gandr, O.E. gūþ, O.H.G. gund.
Putzger, Historischer Atlas (1954) (Dbachmann 2005)

A known exception is that the voiceless stops did not become fricatives if they were
preceded by PIE s., i.e. sp, st, sk, skw. Similarly, PIE t did not become a fricative if
it was preceded by p, k, or kw. This is sometimes treated separately under the
Germanic spirant law.
NWIE vowels: a,o→*a; ā,ō→*ō. PGmc. had then short *i, *u, *e, *a, and long *ī,
*ū, *ē, *ō, *ǣ?
NOTE 1. Similar mergers happened in the Slavic languages, but in the opposite direction.
At the time of the merge, the vowels probably were [ɒ] and [ɒ:] before their timbres
differentiated into maybe [ɑ] and [ɔ:].

86
 1. Introduction

NOTE 2. PGmc. *ǣ and *ē are also transcribed as *ē1 and *ē2; *ē2 is uncertain as a phoneme,
and only reconstructed from a small number of words; it is posited by the comparative
method because whereas all probable instances of inherited NWIE ē (PGmc. *ē1) are
distributed in Gothic as ē and the other Germanic languages as ā, all the Germanic languages
agree on some occasions of ē (e.g. PGmc. *hē2r → Goth.,O.E.,O.N. hēr, “here”). Krahe treats
*ē2 (secondary *ē) as identical with *ī. It probably continues NWIE ei or ēi, and it may have
been in the process of transition from a diphthong to a long simple vowel in the Proto-
Germanic period. Gothic makes no orthographic and therefore presumably no phonetic
distinction between *ē1 and *ē2. The existence of two Proto-Germanic [e:]-like phonemes is
supported by the existence of two e-like Elder Futhark runes, Ehwaz and Eihwaz.

B. LATIN

The Romance or
Romanic (also
Neolatin) languages
comprise all
languages that
descended from Latin,
the language of the
Roman Empire.

Romance languages
have some 800
Regions where Romance languages are spoken as official
languages (dark), by sizeable minorities or official status million native speakers
(lighter) (2011 modified from PD) worldwide, mainly in
the Americas, Europe, and Africa, as well as in many smaller regions scattered
through the world. The largest languages are Spanish and Portuguese, with about
400 and 200 million mother tongue speakers respectively, most of them outside
Europe. Within Europe, French (with 80 million) and Italian (70 million) are the
largest ones. All Romance languages descend from Vulgar Latin, the language of
soldiers, settlers, and slaves of the Roman Empire, which was substantially different
from the Classical Latin of the Roman literati. Between 200 BC and AD 100, the
expansion of the Empire, coupled with administrative and educational policies of
Rome, made Vulgar Latin the dominant native language over a wide area spanning
from the Iberian Peninsula to the Western coast of the Black Sea. During the
Empire’s decadence and after its collapse and fragmentation in the fifth century,
Vulgar Latin evolved independently within each local area, and eventually diverged
into dozens of distinct languages. The oversea empires established by Spain,

87
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

Portugal and France after the fifteenth century then spread Romance to the other
continents — to such an extent that about two thirds of all Romance speakers are
now outside Europe.
Latin is usually classified, along with Faliscan, as an Italic dialect. The Italic
speakers were not native to Italy, but migrated into the Italian Peninsula in the
course of the second millennium BC, and were apparently related to the Celtic tribes
that roamed over a large part of Western Europe at the time.
Archaeologically, the Apennine
culture of inhumations enters the
Italian Peninsula from ca. 1350 BC,
east to west; the Iron Age reaches
Italy from ca. 1100 BC, with the
Villanovan culture (with the practice
of cremation), intruding north to
south. The later Osco-Umbrian,
Veneti and Lepontii peoples, as well
as the Latino-Faliscans, have been
associated with this culture. The first
settlement on the Palatine hill dates
to ca. 750 BC, settlements on the
Quirinal to 720 BC, both related to
the founding of Rome. As Rome
extended its political dominion over Based on The Harper Atlas of World History
1987 (Zymos 2007)
Italy, Latin became dominant over the
other Italic languages, which ceased to be spoken perhaps sometime in the first c.
AD.
Italic is usually divided into:
• Sabellic, including:
o Oscan, spoken in south-central Italy.
o Umbrian group:
 Umbrian.

88
 1. Introduction

 Volscian.
 Aequian.
 Marsian.
 South
Picene.
• Latino-Faliscan,
including:
o Faliscan, spoken
in the area
around Falerii
Veteres, north of
the city of Rome.
o Latin, spoken in
west-central
Italy. The
Roman
conquests
eventually
spread it
throughout the
Ethnic groups within the Italian peninsula, ca. 600-500
Roman Empire BC. In central Italy, Italic languages, (2011, modified from
Ewan ar Born)
and beyond.
The ancient Venetic language, as revealed by its inscriptions (including complete
sentences), was also closely related to the Italic languages and is sometimes even
classified as Italic. However, since it also shares similarities with other Western
Indo-European branches (particularly Germanic), some linguists prefer to consider
it an independent IE language.
Phonetic changes from NWIE to Latin include: bh→f/b, dh→f/b, gh→h/f, gw→w/g,
kw→kw/k, p→p/kw.
The Italic languages are first attested in writing from Umbrian and Faliscan
inscriptions dating to the seventh century BC. The alphabets used are based on the
Old Italic alphabet, which is itself based on the Greek alphabet. The Italic languages
themselves show minor influence from the Etruscan and somewhat more from the
Ancient Greek languages.

89
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

Oscan had much in common with Latin, though there are also some differences,
and many common word-groups in Latin were represented by different forms; as,
Lat. uolo, uelle, uolui, and other such forms from PIE wel-, will, were represented
by words derived from gher-, desire, cf.
Osc. herest ‘he wants, desires’ as opposed
to Lat. uult (id.). Lat. locus ‘place’ was
absent and represented by Osc. slaagid.
In phonology, Oscan also shows a
different evolution, as NWIE kw→ Osc. p
instead of Lat. kw (cf. Osc. pis, Lat. quis);
NWIE gw → Osc. b instead of Latin w;
NWIE medial bh, dh → Osc. f, in contrast
to Lat. b or d (cf. Osc. mefiai, Lat. mediae);
etc.
NOTE. A specimen of Faliscan appears
written round the edge of a picture on a patera:
foied vino pipafo, cra carefo, which in Old
Latin would have been hodie vinom bibabo,
cras carebo, translated as ‘today I will drink
wine; tomorrow I won't have any’ (R. S.
Conway, Italic Dialects). Among other
distinctive features, it shows the retention of
medial f which became Lat. b, and evolution of The Duenos (O.Lat. duenus, Lat.
NWIE gh→f (fo-, contrast Lat. ho-). buenus) Inscription in Old Latin, sixth
century BC. Illustration from Hermes
Hence the reconstructed changes of (1881, PD)
NWIE into Proto-Italic:
• Voiced labiovelars unround or lenite: gw→*g/*w, gwh→*gh.
• Voiced aspirates become first unvoiced, then fricativise: bh→*ph→*ɸ→*f;
dh→*th→*θ; gh→*kh→*x.
NOTE. About intervocalic gh → Ita. *x, linguists (see Joseph & Wallace 1991) generally
propose that it evolves as Faliscan g or k, while in Latin it becomes glottal h, without a change
of manner of articulation. Picard (1993) rejects that proposal citing abstract phonetic
principles, which Chela-Flores (1999) argues citing examples of Spanish phonology.
• NWIE s → Ita. *θ before r (cf. Ita. kereθrom, Lat. cerebrum); unchanged
elsewhere.
Up to 8 cases are found; apart from the 6 cases of Classic Latin (i.e. N-V-A-G-D-
Ab), there was a locative (cf. Lat. proxumae viciniae, domī, carthagini; Osc. aasai,

90
 1. Introduction

Lat. ‘in ārā’, etc.) and an instrumental (cf. Columna Rostrata Lat. pugnandod,
marid, naualid, etc; Osc. cadeis amnud, Lat. ‘inimicitiae causae’; Osc. preiuatud,
Lat. ‘prīuātō’, etc.). For originally differentiated genitives and datives, compare
genitive (Lapis Satricanus:) Popliosio Valesiosio (the type in -ī is also very old,
Segomaros -i), and dative (Praeneste Fibula:) numasioi, (Lucius Cornelius Scipio
Epitaph:) quoiei.

C. CELTIC
The Celtic languages
are the languages
descended from Proto-
Celtic, or Common
Celtic.
During the first
millennium BC,
especially between 400-
100 BC they were spoken
across Europe, from the
southwest of the Iberian
Diachronic distribution of Celtic-speaking peoples: Peninsula and the North
maximal expansion (ca. 200 BC) and modern Celtic-
speaking territories. (2011, modified from Dbachmann Sea, up the Rhine and
2010) down the Danube to the
Black Sea and the Upper Balkan Peninsula, and into Asia Minor (Galatia). Today,
Celtic languages are now limited to a few enclaves in the British Isles and on the
peninsula of Brittany in France.
The distinction of Celtic into different sub-families probably occurred about 1000
BC. The early Celts are commonly associated with the archaeological Urnfield
culture, the La Tène culture, and the Hallstatt culture.
Some scholars distinguish Continental and Insular Celtic, arguing that the
differences between the Goidelic and Brythonic languages arose after these split off
from the Continental Celtic languages. Other scholars distinguish P-Celtic from Q-
Celtic, putting most of the Continental Celtic languages in the former group – except
for Celtiberian, which is Q-Celtic.
NOTE. There are two competing schemata of categorisation. One scheme, argued for by
Schmidt (1988) among others, links Gaulish with Brythonic in a P-Celtic node, leaving
Goidelic as Q-Celtic. The difference between P and Q languages is the treatment of NWIE kw,

91
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

which became *p in the P-Celtic languages but *k in Goidelic. An example is the Cel. verbal
root kwrin- ‘to buy’, which became Welsh pryn-, but O.Ir. cren-.
The other scheme links Goidelic and Brythonic together as an Insular Celtic branch, while
Gaulish and Celtiberian are referred to as Continental Celtic. According to this theory, the
‘P-Celtic’ sound
change of k to p
w

occurred
independently or
regionally. The
proponents of the
Insular Celtic
hypothesis point to
other shared
innovations among
Insular Celtic
languages, including
inflected
prepositions, VSO
word order, and the
lenition of intervocalic Hallstatt core territory (ca. 800 BC) and its influence (ca.
m to β̃, a nasalised 500 BC); La Tène culture (ca. 450 BC) and its influence (ca.
50 BC). Major Celtic tribes are labelled. (Mod. from
voiced bilabial fricative Dbachmann 2008)
(an extremely rare
sound), etc. There is, however, no assumption that the Continental Celtic languages descend
from a common “Proto-Continental Celtic” ancestor. Rather, the Insular/Continental
schemata usually consider Celtiberian the first branch to split from Proto-Celtic, and the
remaining group would later have split into Gaulish and Insular Celtic.
Known NWIE evolutions into Proto-Celtic include:
• Consonants: p →*ɸ→*h→∅ in initial and intervocalic positions. Cel. *ɸs→xs,
*ɸt→xt
NOTE. LIE p was lost in Proto-Celtic, apparently going through the stages ɸ (perhaps in
Lus. porcos) and h (perhaps attested by the toponym Hercynia if this is of Celtic origin)
before being lost completely word-initially and between vowels. NWIE sp- became Old Irish
s and Brythonic f; while Schrijver (1995) argues there was an intermediate stage *sɸ- (in
which ɸ remained an independent phoneme until after Proto-Insular Celtic had diverged

92
 1. Introduction

into Goidelic and Brythonic), McCone (1996) finds it more economical to believe that sp-
remained unchanged in PC,
that is, the change p to *ɸ did
not happen when s preceded.
• Aspirated: dh→d,
bh→b, gh→x, gwh→gw;
but gw→b.
• Vowels: ō → ā, ū (in
final syllable); ē→ī;
NWIE u-w → Cel. o-
w.
• Diphthongs: āi→ai,
ēi→ei, ōi→oi; āu→au,
ēu,ōu→ou.
Gaulish iscription ϹΕΓΟΜΑΡΟϹ ΟΥΙΛΛΟΝΕΟϹ
• Resonants: l̥→la, li ΤΟΟΥΤΙΟΥϹ ΝΑΜΑΥϹΑΤΙϹ ΕΙωΡΟΥ ΒΗΛΗϹΑΜΙ
ϹΟϹΙΝ ΝΕΜΗΤΟΝ "Segomaros, son of Uillū, citizen
(before stops); r̥ → ar, (toutious) of Namausos, dedicated this sanctuary to
Belesama" (Fabrice Philibert-Caillat 2004)
ri (before stops); m̥ →
am; n̥ → an.
Italo-Celtic refers to the hypothesis that Italic and Celtic dialects are descended
from a common ancestor, Proto-Italo-Celtic, at a stage post-dating Late Indo-
European. Since both Proto-Celtic and Proto-Italic date to the early Iron Age (say,
the centuries on either side of 1000 BC), a probable time frame for the assumed
period of language contact would be the late Bronze Age, the early to mid-second
millennium BC. Such grouping was proposed by Meillet (1890), and has been
recently supported by Kortlandt (2007), among others (see above).
NOTE. One argument for Italo-Celtic was the thematic genitive in I (e.g. dominus, domini).
Both in Italic (Popliosio Valesiosio, Lapis Satricanus) and in Celtic (Lepontic, Celtiberian -
o), however, traces of PIE genitive -osjo have been discovered, so that the spread of the i-
genitive could have occurred in the two groups independently, or by areal diffusion. The
community of -ī in Italic and Celtic may be then attributable to late contact, rather than to
an original unity. The i-Genitive has been compared to the so-called Cvi formation in
Sanskrit, but that too is probably a comparatively late development.
Other arguments include that both Celtic and Italic have collapsed the PIE Aorist and
Perfect into a single past tense, and the ā-subjunctive, because both Italic and Celtic have a
subjunctive descended from an earlier optative in -ā-. Such an optative is not known from
other languages, but the suffix occurs in Balto-Slavic and Tocharian past tense formations,
and possibly in Hitt. -ahh-.

93
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

D. SLAVIC
The Slavic or Slavonic
languages have
speakers in most of
Eastern Europe, in
much of the Balkans, in
parts of Central
Europe, and in the
northern part of Asia.
The largest languages
are Russian and Polish,
World map of countries with a majority Slavic speakers with 165 and some 47
(dark colour), and a significant minority (light) of more million speakers,
than 10%. (Therexbanner 2010)
respectively. The oldest
Slavic literary language was Old Church Slavonic, which later evolved into Church
Slavonic.
There is much debate on whether Pre-Slavic branched off directly from a Northern
LIE dialect, or it passed through a common Proto-Balto-Slavic stage, which would
have necessarily split apart before 1000 BC in its two main sub-branches.
The original homeland of
the speakers of Proto-
Slavic remains
controversial too. The
most ancient recognisably
Slavic hydronyms are to be
found in northern and
western Ukraine and
southern Belarus. It has
also been noted that Proto-
Slavic seemingly lacked a
maritime vocabulary.
The Proto-Slavic
Based on information and maps from Mallory–
language secession from a Adams (1997). (Slovenski Volk 2009)

94
 1. Introduction

common Proto-Balto-Slavic is estimated on archaeological and glottochronological

criteria to have occurred between 1500-1000 BC (see below Baltic). Common Slavic
is usually reconstructible to around AD 600.

By the seventh century, Common Slavic had broken apart into large dialectal
zones. Linguistic differentiation received impetus from the dispersion of the Slavic
peoples over a large territory – which in Central Europe exceeded the current extent
of Slavic-speaking territories. Written documents of the ninth, tenth and eleventh
centuries already show some local linguistic features.
NOTE. For example the Freising monuments show a language which contains some
phonetic and lexical elements peculiar to Slovenian dialects (e.g. rhotacism, the word
krilatec).

In the second half of the ninth

century, the dialect spoken north of
Thessaloniki became the basis for the
first written Slavic language, created by
the brothers Cyril and Methodius who
translated portions of the Bible and
other church books. The language they
recorded is known as Old Church
Slavonic. Old Church Slavonic is not
identical to Proto-Slavic, having been
recorded at least two centuries after the
breakup of Proto-Slavic, and it shows
features that clearly distinguish it from
Proto-Slavic. However, it is still
reasonably close, and the mutual
intelligibility between Old Church
Slavonic and other Slavic dialects of
those days was proved by Cyril’s and
Page from Codex Zographensis (10 th - 11 th
Methodius’ mission to Great Moravia c. AD) in Old Church Slavonic. (PD)
and Pannonia. There, their early South Slavic dialect used for the translations was
clearly understandable to the local population which spoke an early West Slavic
dialect.

As part of the preparation for the mission, the Glagolitic alphabet was created in
862 and the most important prayers and liturgical books, including the Aprakos

95
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

Evangeliar – a Gospel Book lectionary containing only feast-day and Sunday

readings –, the Psalter, and Acts of the Apostles, were translated. The language and
the alphabet were taught at the Great Moravian Academy (O.C.S. Veľkomoravské
učilište) and were used for government and religious documents and books. In 885,
the use of the O.C.S. in Great Moravia was prohibited by the Pope in favour of Latin.
Students of the two apostles, who were expelled from Great Moravia in 886, brought
the Glagolitic alphabet and the Old Church Slavonic language to the Bulgarian
Empire, where it was taught and Cyrillic alphabet developed in the Preslav Literary
School.

Vowel changes from Late Indo-European to Proto-Slavic:

• LIE *ī, *ei → Sla. *i1; LIE *i →*i → Sla. *ь; LIE *u → *u → Sla. *ъ; LIE ū → Sla.
*y.
• LIE *e → Sla. *e; LIE *ē → Sla. *ě1;

• LIE *en, *em → Sla. *ę; LIE *an, *on; *am, *om →*an; *am → Sla. *ǫ.

• LIE *a, *o → *a → Sla. *o; LIE *ā, *ō → *ā → Sla. *a; LIE *ai, *oi → *ai → Sla.
*ě2. Reduced *ai (*ăi/*ui) → Sla. *i2; LIE *au,*ou → *au → Sla. *u.

After Barford (A history of Eastern Europe: crisis and change, 2007). (Slovenski
Volk (2009)

96
 1. Introduction

NOTE. Apart from these simplified equivalences, other patterns appear (see Kortlandt’s
article <http://www.kortlandt.nl/publications/art066e.pdf>, From Proto-Indo-European
to Slavic):
o The vowels *i2, *ě2 developed later than *i1, *ě1. In Late Proto-Slavic there were no
differences in pronunciation between *i1 and i2 as well as between *ě1 and *ě2. They had
caused, however, different changes of preceding velars, see below.
o Late Proto-Slavic yers *ь, *ъ < earlier *i, *u developed also from reduced LIE *e, *o
respectively. The reduction was probably a morphologic process rather than phonetic.
o We can observe similar reduction of *ā into *ū (and finally *y) in some endings,
especially in closed syllables.
o The development of the Sla. *i2 was also a morphologic phenomenon, originating only
in some endings.
o Another source of the Proto-Slavic *y is *ō in Germanic loanwords – the borrowings
took place when Proto-Slavic no longer had *ō in native words, as LIE *ō had already
changed into *ā.
o LIE *ə disappeared without traces when in a non-initial syllable.
o LIE *eu probably developed into *jau in Early Proto-Slavic (or during the Balto-Slavic
epoch), and eventually into Proto-Slavic *ju.
o According to some authors, LIE long diphthongs *ēi, *āi, *ōi, *ēu, *āu, *ōu had twofold
development in Early Proto-Slavic, namely they shortened in endings into simple *ei, *ai,
*oi, *eu, *au, *ou but they lost their second element elsewhere and changed into *ē, *ā, *ō
with further development like above.
Other vocalic changes from Proto-Slavic include *jo, *jъ, *jy changed into *je, *jь, *ji; *o,
*ъ, *y also changed into *e, *ь, *i after *c, *ʒ, *s’ which developed as the result of the 3rd
palatalisation; *e, *ě changed into *o, *a after *č, *ǯ, *š, *ž in some contexts or words; a
similar change of *ě into *a after *j seems to have occurred in Proto-Slavic but next it can
have been modified by analogy.
On the origin of Proto-Slavic consonants, the following relationships are found:
• LIE *p → Sla. *p; LIE *b, *bh → Sla. *b.
• LIE *t → Sla. *t; LIE *d, *dh → Sla. *d.
• LIE *k, *kw → Sla. k (palatalised *kj → Sla. s); LIE *g, *gh, *gw, *gwh → Sla. *g
(palatalised *gj, *gjh → Sla. *z)
• LIE *s → Sla. *s; before a voiced consonant LIE *z → Sla. *z; before a vowel
when after *r, *u, *k, *i, probably also after *l → Sla. *x.
• LIE word-final *m → Sla. *n (<BSl. *n).
• LIE *m̥ → Sla. *im, *um; LIE *n̥ → Sla. *in, *un; LIE *l̥ → Sla. *il, *ul; LIE r̥ →
Sla. *ir, *ur.
• LIE *w → Sla. *v (<BSl. *w); LIE *j → Sla. *j.
In some words the Proto-Slavic *x developed from LIE phonemes like *ks, *sk.

97
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

E. BALTIC

The Baltic languages were spoken in areas extending east and southeast of the
Baltic Sea in Northern Europe.

Adapted
from
Gimbutas
(The Balts,
1963).
(Map
Master
2007)

The language group is often divided into two sub-groups: Western Baltic,
containing only extinct languages as Prussian or Galindan, and Eastern Baltic,
containing extinct as well as the two living languages in the group, Lithuanian and
Latvian. While related, Lithuanian and Latvian differ substantially from each other
and are not mutually intelligible.
The oldest Baltic linguistic record is the Elbinger lexicon of the beginning of the
fourteenth century. It contains 802 Old Prussian equivalents of Old Middle German
words. The oldest Baltic text is Old Prussian as well; it comes from the middle of the
fourteenth century and includes only eleven words. The first Old Lithuanian and

98
 1. Introduction

Old Latvian texts come from the sixteenth century and appear already in book form,
and were translations of a catechism and the Lord’s Prayer.
Baltic and Slavic share so many similarities that many linguists, following the lead
of such notable Indo-Europeanists as August Schleicher and Oswald Szemerényi,
take these to indicate that the two groups separated from a common ancestor, the
Proto-Balto-Slavic language, dated ca. 1500-500 BC, depending on the different
guesstimates.
NOTE 1. About Balto-Slavic guesstimates, “Classical glottochronology” conducted by Czech
Slavist M. Čejka in 1974 dates the Balto-Slavic split to -910±340 BC, Sergei Starostin in 1994
dates it to 1210 BC, and “recalibrated glottochronology” conducted by Novotná & Blažek
dates it to 1400-1340 BC. This agrees well with Trziniec-Komarov culture, localised from
Silesia to Central Ukraine and dated to the period 1500-1200 BC.

Linguistic area of Balto-Slavic languages, Ramat (1993). (Slovenski Volk 2009)

NOTE 2. Until Meillet’s Dialectes indo-européens of 1908, Balto-Slavic unity was
undisputed among linguists – as he notes at the beginning of the Le Balto-Slave chapter,
“L’unité linguistique balto-slave est l’une de celles que personne ne conteste”. Meillet’s
critique of Balto-Slavic confined itself to the seven characteristics listed by Karl Brugmann
in 1903, attempting to show that no single one of these is sufficient to prove genetic unity.
Szemerényi in his 1957 re-examination of Meillet’s results concludes that the Balts and Slavs
did, in fact, share a “period of common language and life”, and were probably separated due

99
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

to the incursion of Germanic tribes along the Vistula and the Dnieper roughly at the
beginning of the Common Era.
A new theory was proposed in the 1960s by V. Ivanov and V. Toporov: that the
Balto-Slavic proto-language split from the start into West Baltic, East Baltic and
Proto-Slavic. In their framework, Proto-Slavic is a peripheral and innovative Balto-
Slavic dialect which suddenly expanded, due to a conjunction of historical
circumstances. Onomastic evidence shows that Baltic languages were once spoken
in much wider territory than the one they cover today, and were later replaced by
Slavic.
NOTE. The most important of these common Balto-Slavic isoglosses are:
o Winter’s law: lengthening of a short vowel before a voiced plosive, usually in a closed
syllable.
o Identical reflexes of LIE syllabic resonants, usually developing i and u before them.
Kuryłowicz thought that *uR reflexes arose after LIE velars, and also notable is also
older opinion of J.Endzelīns and *R. Trautmann according to whom *uR reflexes are
the result of zero-grade of morphemes that had LIE *o → PBSl. *a in normal-grade.
Matasović (2008) proposes following internal rules after LIE *r̥ → BSl. *ər: 1) *ə→*i in
a final syllable; 2) *ə→*u after velars and before nasals; 3) *ə→*i otherwise.
o Hirt’s law: retraction of LIE accent to the preceding syllable closed by a laryngeal.
o Rise of the Balto-Slavic acute before LIE laryngeals in a closed syllable.
o Replacement of LIE genitive singular of thematic nouns with ablative.
o Formation of past tense in *-ē (cf. Lith. pret. dãvė, “he gave”, O.C.S. imperfect bě, “he
was”)
o Generalisation of the LIE neuter to- stem to the nominative singular of masculine and
feminine demonstratives instead of LIE so- pronoun, so, sā, tod → BSl. *tos, *tā, *tod.
o Formation of definite adjectives with a construction of adjective and relative pronoun;
cf. Lith. geràsis, “the good”, vs. gẽras, “good”; O.C.S dobrъjь, “the good”, vs. dobrъ,
“good”.
Common Balto-Slavic innovations include several other prominent, but non-exclusive
isoglosses, such as the satemisation, Ruki, change of LIE *o → BSl. *a (shared with Germanic,
Indo-Iranian and Anatolian) and the loss of labialisation in LIE labiovelars (shared with
Indo-Iranian, Armenian and Tocharian). Among Balto-Slavic archaisms notable is the
retention of traces of an older LIE pitch accent. ‘Ruki’ is the term for a sound law which is
followed especially in BSl. and Aryan dialects. The name of the term comes from the sounds
which cause the phonetic change, i.e. LIE *s → š / r, u, k, i (it associates with a Slavic word
which means ‘hands’ or ‘arms’). A sibilant *s is retracted to *ʃ after *i, *u,* r, and after velars
(i.e. *k which may have developed from earlier *k, *g, *gh). Due to the character of the
retraction, it was probably an apical sibilant (as in Spanish), rather than the dorsal of English.
The first phase (*s → *š) seems to be universal, the later retroflexion (in Sanskrit and probably

100
 1. Introduction

in Proto-Slavic as well) is due to levelling of the sibilant system, and so is the third phase -
the retraction to velar *x in Slavic and also in some Middle Indian languages, with parallels
in e.g. Spanish. This rule was first formulated for IE by Holger Pedersen.
Baltic and Slavic show a remarkable amount of correspondence in vocabulary too; there
are at least 100 words exclusive to BSl., either being a common innovation or sharing the
same semantic development from a PIE root; as, BSl. *lēipā, “tilia” → Lith. líepa, O.Prus.
līpa, Ltv. liẽpa; Sla. *lipa; BSl. *rankā, “hand” → Lith. rankà, O.Prus. rānkan, Ltv. rùoka;
Sla. *rǭkà (cf. O.C.S. rǫka). BSl. *galwā́, “head” → Lith. galvà, O.Prus. galwo, Ltv. galva;
Sla. *golvà (cf. O.C.S. glava).

F. FRAGMENTARY DIALECTS

MESSAPIAN
Messapian (also known as Messapic) is an extinct language of south-eastern Italy,
once spoken in the regions of Apulia and Calabria. It was spoken by the three
Iapygian tribes of the region: the Messapians, the Daunii and the Peucetii. The
language, a centum dialect, has been preserved in about 260 inscriptions dating
from the sixth to the first century BC. It became extinct after the Roman Empire
conquered the region and assimilated the inhabitants.
Some have proposed that Messapian was an Illyrian language. The Illyrian
languages were spoken mainly on the other side of the Adriatic Sea. The link
between Messapian and Illyrian is based mostly on personal names found on tomb
inscriptions and on classical references, since hardly any traces of the Illyrian
language are left.
NOTE. Some phonetic characteristics of the language may be regarded as quite certain:
o PIE short *o→a, as in the last syllable of the genitive kalatoras.
o PIE final *m→n, as in aran.
o PIE *nj→nn, as in the Messapian praenomen Dazohonnes vs. the Illyrian praenomen
Dazonius; the Messapian genitive Dazohonnihi vs. Illyrian genitive Dasonii, etc.
o PIE *tj→tth, as in the Messapian praenomen Dazetthes vs. Illyrian Dazetius; the
Messapian genitive Dazetthihi vs. the Illyrian genitive Dazetii; from a Dazet- stem
common in Illyrian and Messapian.
o PIE *sj→ss, as in Messapian Vallasso for Vallasio, a derivative from the shorter name
Valla.
o The loss of final *-d, as in tepise, and probably of final *-t, as in -des, perhaps meaning
‘set’, from PIE *dhe- ‘set, put’.

101
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

o The change of voiced aspirates in Proto-Indo-European to plain voiced consonants: PIE

*dh→d, as in Messapian anda (< PIE *en-dha- < PIE *en- ‘in’, compare Gk. entha); and
PIE *bh→b, as in Messapian beran (< PIE *bher- ‘to bear’).
o PIE *au→ā before (at least some) consonants: Bāsta, from Bausta.
o The form penkaheh – which Torp very probably identifies with the Oscan stem pompaio
– a derivative of the Proto-Indo-European numeral *penkwe ‘five’.
o If this last identification be correct it would show, that in Messapian (just as in Venetic
and Ligurian) the original labiovelars (*kw,*gw, *gwh) were retained as gutturals and not
converted into labials. The change of o to a is interesting, being associated with the
northern branches of Indo-European such as Gothic, Albanian and Lithuanian, and not
appearing in any other southern dialect hitherto known. The Greek Aphrodite appears
in the form Aprodita (Dat. Sg., fem.).
o The use of double consonants which has been already pointed out in the Messapian
inscriptions has been very acutely connected by Deecke with the tradition that the same
practice was introduced at Rome by the poet Ennius who came from the Messapian
town Rudiae (Festus, p. 293 M).

VENETIC
Venetic was spoken in the Veneto region of Italy, between the Po River delta and
the southern fringe of the Alps. It was a centum language.
The language is attested by over 300 short inscriptions dating between the sixth
century BC and first century AD. Its speakers are identified with the ancient people
called Veneti by the Romans and Enetoi by the Greek. The inscriptions use a variety
of the Northern Italic alphabet, similar to the Old Italic alphabet. It became extinct
around the first century when the local inhabitants were assimilated into the Roman
sphere.
NOTE. The exact relationship of Venetic to other Indo-European languages is still being
investigated, but the majority of scholars agree that Venetic, aside from Liburnian, was
closest to the Italic languages. Venetic may also have been related to the Illyrian languages,
though the theory that Illyrian and Venetic were closely related is debated by current
scholarship.
Interesting parallels with Germanic have also been noted, especially in pronominal forms:
Ven. ego ‘I’, acc. mego ‘me’; Goth. ik, acc. mik; but cf. Lat. ego, acc. me.
Ven. sselboisselboi ‘to oneself’; O.H.G. selb selbo; but cf. Lat. sibi ipsi.
Venetic had about six or even seven noun cases and four conjugations (similar to Latin).
About 60 words are known, but some were borrowed from Latin (liber.tos. < libertus) or
Etruscan. Many of them show a clear Indo-European origin, such as Ven. vhraterei (< PIE
*bhreh2terei) ‘to the brother’.

102
 1. Introduction

In Venetic, PIE stops *bh→f, *dh→f, *gh→h, in word-initial position (as in Latin and Osco-
Umbrian), but to *bh→b, *dh→d, *gh→g, in word-internal intervocalic position, as in Latin. For
Venetic, at least the developments of *bh and *dh are clearly attested. Faliscan and Osco-
Umbrian preserve internal *bh→f,* dh→f, *gh→h.
There are also indications of the developments of PIE initial *gw→w-, PIE *kw→kv and PIE
initial *gwh→f in Venetic, all of which are parallel to Latin, as well as the regressive
assimilation of PIE sequence *p...kw... → kw...kw... (e.g. *penkwe → *kwenkwe, “five”, *perkwu
→ *kwerkwu, “oak”), a feature also found in Italic and Celtic (Lejeune 1974).

LIGURIAN
The Ligurian language was spoken in pre-Roman times and into the Roman era by
an ancient people of north-western Italy and south-eastern France known as the
Ligures. Very little is known about this language (mainly place names and personal
names remain) which is generally believed to have been Indo-European; it appears
to have adopted significantly from other IE languages, primarily Celtic (Gaulish)
and Latin.
Strabo states “As for the Alps... Many tribes (éthnê) occupy these mountains, all
Celtic (Keltikà) except the Ligurians; but while these Ligurians belong to a
different people (hetero-ethneis), still they are similar to the Celts in their modes of
life (bíois).”

LIBURNIAN
The Liburnian language is an extinct language spoken by the ancient Liburnians
in the region of Liburnia (south of the Istrian peninsula) in classical times. It is
usually classified as a centum language. It appears to have been on the same Indo-
European branch as the Venetic language; indeed, the Liburnian tongue may well
have been a Venetic dialect.
NOTE. No writings in Liburnian are known, though. The grouping of Liburnian with
Venetic is based on the Liburnian onomastics. In particular, Liburnian anthroponyms show
strong Venetic affinities, with many common or similar names and a number of common
roots, such as Vols-, Volt-, and Host- (<PIE *ghos-ti- ‘stranger, guest, host’). Liburnian and
Venetic names also share suffixes in common, such as -icus and -ocus.
These features set Liburnian and Venetic apart from the Illyrian onomastic province,
though this does not preclude the possibility that Venetic-Liburnian and Illyrian may have
been closely related, belonging to the same Indo-European branch. In fact, a number of
linguists argue that this is the case, based on similar phonetic features and names in common
between Venetic-Liburnian on the one hand and Illyrian on the other.

103
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

Liburnia was conquered by the Romans in 35 BC, and its language was eventually
replaced by Latin, undergoing language death probably very early in the Common
Era.

LUSITANIAN
Lusitanian or Lusatian (so named after the Lusitani or Lusitanians) was a
Paleohispanic IE language known by only five inscriptions and numerous toponyms
and theonyms. The language was spoken before the Roman conquest of Lusitania,
in the territory inhabited by Lusitanian tribes, from Douro to the Tagus River in the
western area of the Iberian Peninsula, where they were established already before
the sixth century BC.

(2011, modified from

Alcides Pinto 2010)

Their language is usually considered a Pre-Celtic (possibly stemming from a

common Italo-Celtic) IE dialect, and it is sometimes associated with the language of
the Vettones and with the linguistic substratum of the Gallaeci and Astures, based
on archaeological findings and descriptions of ancient historians.
NOTE. The affiliation of the Lusitanian language within a Pre-Celtic IE group is supported
by Tovar, Schmidt, Gorrochategui, among others, while Untermann e.g. considers it a Celtic

104
 1. Introduction

language.The theory that it was a Celtic language is largely based upon the historical fact that
the only Indo-European tribes that are known to have existed in Hispania at that time were
Celtic tribes. The apparent Celtic character of most of the lexicon —anthroponyms and
toponyms — may also support a Celtic affiliation. There is a substantial problem in the Celtic
theory, though: the preservation of PIE initial *p-, as in Lusitanian pater ‘father’, or porcom
‘pig’. The Celtic languages had lost that initial PIE *p- in their evolution; compare Lat. pater,
Gaul. ater, and Lat. porcum, O.Ir. orc. However, that does not necessarily preclude the
possibility of Lusitanian being Celtic, because of the theoretical evolution of LIE initial *p →
*ɸ → *h → Cel. ∅, so it might have been an early Proto-Celtic (or Italo-Celtic) dialect that split
off before the loss of *p-, or when *p- had become *ɸ- (before shifting to *h- and then being
lost); the letter p of the Latin alphabet could have been used to represent either sound.
F. Villar and R. Pedrero relate Lusitanian with the Italic languages. The theory is based on
parallels in the names of deities, as Lat. Consus, Lus. Cossue, Lat. Seia, Lus. Segia, or
Marrucinian Iovia, Lus. Iovea(i), etc. and other lexical items, as Umb. gomia, Lus. comaiam,
with some other grammatical elements.
II. NORTHERN INDO-EUROPEAN IN ASIA: TOCHARIAN
Tocharian or Tokharian is one of the most obscure branches of the Northern
dialects. The name of the language is taken from people known to the Greek
historians (Ptolemy VI, 11, 6) as the Tocharians (Greek Τόχαροι, Tókharoi).
NOTE. These are sometimes identified with the Yuezhi and the Kushans, while the term
Tokharistan usually refers to first millennium Bactria. A Turkic text refers to the Turfanian
language (Tocharian A) as twqry. F. W. K. Müller has associated this with the name of the
Bactrian Tokharoi. In Tocharian, the language is referred to as arish-käna and the
Tocharians as arya.
Tocharian consisted of two languages; Tocharian A (Turfanian, Arsi, or East
Tocharian) and Tocharian B (Kuchean or West Tocharian). These languages were
spoken roughly from the sixth to ninth centuries; before they became extinct, their
speakers were absorbed into the expanding Uyghur tribes. Both languages were
once spoken in the Tarim Basin in Central Asia, now the Xinjiang Autonomous
Region of China.
NOTE. Properly speaking, based on the tentative interpretation of twqry as related to
Tokharoi, only Tocharian A may be referred to as Tocharian, while Tocharian B could be
called Kuchean (its native name may have been kuśiññe), but since their grammars are
usually treated together in scholarly works, the terms A and B have proven useful.
Tocharian is documented in manuscript fragments, mostly from the eighth
century (with a few earlier ones) that were written on palm leaves, wooden tablets
and Chinese paper, preserved by the extremely dry climate of the Tarim Basin.

105
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

Samples of the language have been discovered at sites in Kucha and Karasahr,
including many mural inscriptions.
Tocharian A and B were not intercomprehensible. The common Proto-Tocharian
language must have preceded the attested languages by several centuries, probably
dating to the first millennium BC.

1.7.2. SOUTHERN INDO-EUROPEAN DIALECTS

I. GREEK

Ancient Greek dialects by 400 BC after R.D. Woodard (2004). (2009, modified from
Fut. Perf. 2008)

1. Greek has a documented history of 3500 years. Today, Modern Greek is spoken
by 15 million people.
2. The major dialect groups of the Ancient Greek period can be assumed to have
developed not later than 1120 BC, at the time of the Dorian invasions, and their first
appearances as precise alphabetic writing began in the eighth century BC.

106
 1. Introduction

3. Mycenaean is the most ancient attested form of the Greek branch, spoken on
mainland Greece and on Crete between 1600-1100 BC, before the Dorian invasion.
It is preserved in inscriptions in Linear B, a script invented on Crete before the
fourteenth century BC. Most instances of these inscriptions are on clay tablets found
in Knossos and in Pylos. The language is named after Mycenae, the first of the
palaces to be excavated.
NOTE. The tablets remained long undeciphered, and every conceivable language was
suggested for them, until Michael Ventris deciphered the script in 1952 and proved the
language to be an early form of Greek. The texts on the tablets are mostly lists and
inventories. No prose narrative survives, much less myth or poetry. Still, much may be
glimpsed from these records about the people who produced them, and about the Mycenaean
period at the eve of the so-called Greek Dark Ages.
5. Unlike later varieties of
Greek, Mycenaean
probably had seven
grammatical cases, the
nominative, the genitive,
the accusative, the dative,
the instrumental, the
locative, and the vocative.
The instrumental and the
locative however gradually
fell out of use.
NOTE. For the locative in *- Mycenaean tablet (MY Oe 106) inscripted in linear B
ei, compare di-da-ka-re, coming from the House of the Oil Merchant (ca. 1250
‘didaskalei’, e-pi-ko-e, BC). The tablet registers an amount of wool which is to
be dyed. National Archaeological Museum of Athens.
‘Epikóhei’, etc (in Greek there (Marsyas 2005)
are syntactic compounds like
puloi-genēs, ‘born in Pylos’); also, for remains of an ablative case in *-ōd, compare (months’
names) ka-ra-e-ri-jo-me-no, wo-de-wi-jo-me-no, etc.
6. Proto-Greek (the so-called Proto-Hellenic, or Pre-Greek in Sihler 1995) was a
Southern LIE dialect, spoken in the late third millennium BC, roughly at the same
time as North-West Indo-European and Proto-Indo-Iranian, most probably in the
Balkans.
NOTE. According to Anthony (2007): “Greek shared traits with Armenian and Phrygian,
both of which probably descended from languages spoken in southeastern Europe before
1200 BCE, so Greek shared a common background with some southeastern European

107
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

languages that might have evolved from the speech of the Yamnaya immigrants in Bulgaria”.
Proponents of a Proto-Greek homeland in Bulgaria or Romania are found in Sergent (1995),
J. Makkay (Atti e memorie del Secondo Congresso Internazionale di Micenologia, 1996;
Origins of the Proto-Greeks and Proto-Anatolians from a Common Perspective, 2003).
7. Proto-Greek (Pre-Greek or Proto-Hellenic) has been posited as a probable
ancestor of Phrygian, and a possible ancestor of Thracian, Dacian, and Ancient
Macedonian. Armenian has traditionally been regarded as derived from it through
Phrygian, although this is disputed today.
NOTE. The Graeco-Armenian hypothesis proposed a close relationship to the Greek
language – putting both in the larger context of the Paleo-Balkan Sprachbund – notably
including Phrygian, which is widely accepted particularly close to Greek –, consistent with
Herodotus’ recording of the Armenians as descending from colonists of the Phrygians. That
traditional linguistic theory, proposed by Pedersen (1924), proposed a close relationship
between both original communities, Greek and Armenian, departing from a common
language. That vision, accepted for a long time, was rejected by Clackson (1994) in The
linguistic relationship between Armenian and Greek, which, while supporting the Graeco-
Aryan community, argues that there are not more coincidences between Armenian and
Greek than those found in the comparison between any other IE language pair; shared
isoglosses would therefore stem from contiguity within the common S.LIE community.
Those findings are supported by Kortlandt in Armeniaca (2003), in which he proposes an
old Central IE continuum Daco-Albanian / Graeco-Phrygian / Thraco-Armenian. Adrados
(1998), considers an older Southern continuum Graeco-[Daco-]Thraco-Phrygian /
Armenian / Indo-Iranian. Olteanu (2009) proposes a Graeco-Daco-Thracian language.
8. The unity of Proto-Greek probably ended as Hellenic migrants entered the
Greek peninsula around 2300 BC.
NOTE. About the archaeological quest, Anthony (2007): “The people who imported Greek
or Proto-Greek to Greece might have moved several times, perhaps by sea, from the western
Pontic steppes to southeastern Europe to western Anatolia to Greece, making their trail hard
to find. The EHII/III transition about 2400-2200 BCE has long been seen as a time of radical
change in Greece when new people might have arrived (…)”.
In West’s (2007) words, “The first speakers of Greek – or rather of the language that was
to develop into Greek; I will call them mello-Greeks – arrived in Greece, on the most widely
accepted view, at the beginning of Early Helladic III, that is, around 2300. They came by way
of Epirus, probably from somewhere north of the Danube”.
9. The primary sound changes from PIE to Proto-Greek include:
• Aspiration of PIE intervocalic *s → PGk h.
NOTE. The loss of PIE prevocalic *s- was not completed entirely, famously evidenced by
the loss of prevocalic *s was not completed entirely, famously evidenced by PGk
sūs (also hūs, pig, from PIE *suh₁-); sun ‘with’, sometimes considered contaminated with

108
 1. Introduction

PIE *kom (cf. Latin cum) to Homeric / Old Attic ksun, is possibly a consequence of Gk. psi-
substrate (Villar).
• De-voicing of PIE voiced aspirates: *bh→ph, *dh→th, *gh→kh, *gwh→kwh.
• Dissimilation of aspirates (Grassmann’s law), possibly post-Mycenaean.
• PIE word-initial *j- (not *Hj-) is strengthened to PGk dj- (later Gk. ζ-).
• In the first stage of palatalisation (Sihler 1995), PIE *dj- was possibly palatalised
into PGk dz(j)- , while PIE *tj-, *dhj- probably became PGk ts(j)-.
• Vocalisation of laryngeals between vowels and initially before consonants, i.e.
*h1→e, *h2→a, *h3→o; as, from PIE *h2nēr ‘man’, PGk. anḗr.
NOTE. That development is common to Greek, Phrygian and Armenian; cf. Gk. anḗr,
Phrygian anar, and Armenian ayr (from earlier *anir). In other branches, laryngeals did not
vocalise in this position and eventually disappeared. The evolution of Proto-Greek should be
considered with the background of an early Palaeo-Balkan Sprachbund that makes it difficult
to delineate exact boundaries between individual languages. Phrygian and Armenian also
share other phonological and morphological peculiarities of Greek.
• The sequence CRHC evolves generally as follows: *CRh1C → PGk CRēC; PIE
*CRh2C → PGk CRāC; PIE *CRh3C → PGk CRōC.
• The sequence PIE *CRHV becomes generally PGk CaRV.
NOTE. It has also been proposed by Sihler (2000) that PIE *Vkw→ukw; cf. PIE *nokwts
‘night’ → PGk nukwts → Gk. nuks/nuxt-; cf. also *kwekwlos ‘wheel’ → PGk kwukwlos → Gk.
kuklos; etc. This is related to Cowgill's law, raising *o to u between a resonant and a labial.
10. Later sound changes from Proto-Greek into mello-Greek (or from Pre-Greek
into Proto-Greek after Sihler 1995), from which Mycenaean was derived, include:
o The second stage of palatalisation, which affected all consonants, including the
restored tsj and dzj sequences (Sihler 1995).
o Loss of final stop consonants; final m→n.
o Syllabic m̥→am, and n̥→an, before resonants; otherwise both were nasalised
m̥/n̥→ã→a.
o Loss of s in consonant clusters, with supplementary lengthening, e.g. esmi→ēmi.
o Creation of secondary s from clusters, ntja→nsa. Assibilation ti→si only in
southern dialects.
o Mycenaean i-vocalism and replacement of double-consonant -kw- for -kwkw-.
NOTE. On the problematic case of common Greek ἵππος (hippos), horse, derived from PIE
and PGk ekwos, Meier-Brügger (2003): “the i-vocalism of which is best understood as an
inheritance from the Mycenaean period. At that time, e in a particular phonetic situation
must have been pronounced in a more closed manner, cf. di-pa i.e. dipas neuter ‘lidded
container fror drinking’ vs. the later δέρας (since Homer): Risch (1981), O. Panagl (1989).

109
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

That the i-form extended to the entire Greek region may be explained in that the word, very
central during Mycenaean rule of the entire region (second millennium BC), spread and
suppressed the e-form that had certainly been present at one time. On the -pp-: The original
double-consonance -ku̯- was likely replaced by -kwkw- in the pre-Mycenaean period, and
again, in turn by -pp- after the disappearance of the labiovelars. Suggestions of an ancient -
kwkw- are already given by the Mycenaean form as i-qo (a possible *i-ko-wo does not appear)
and the noted double-
consonance in alphabetic
Greek. The aspiration of
the word at the beginning
remains a riddle.”
Other features
common to the earliest
Greek dialects include:
• Late satemisation Main dialectal distribution in territories with Greek-
trend, evidenced by speaking majorities (ca. 15th c.): Koiné, Pontic and
Cappadocian Greek. The language distribution in
the post-Mycenaean Anatolia remained almost unchanged until the expulsion
change of of Greeks (1914-1923) from Turkey. (2011, modified from
Ivanchay, Infocan 2008)
labiovelars into
dentals before e; as, kwe → te ‘and’.
• PIE dative, instrumental and locative were syncretised into a single dative.
• Dialectal nominative plural in -oi, -ai (shared with Latin) fully replaces LIE
common *-ōs, *-ās.
• The superlative -tatos (<PIE *-tṃo-) becomes productive.
• The peculiar oblique stem gunaik- ‘women’, attested from the Thebes tablets is
probably Proto-Greek; it appears, at least as gunai- also in Armenian.
• The pronouns houtos, ekeinos and autos are created. Use of ho, hā, ton as
articles is post-Mycenaean.
• The first person middle verbal desinences -mai, -mān replace -ai, -a. The third
singular pherei is an analogical innovation, replacing the expected PIE *bhéreti,
i.e. Dor. *phereti, Ion. *pheresi.
• The future tense is created, including a future passive and an aorist passive.
• The suffix -ka- is attached to some perfects and aorists.
• Infinitives in -ehen, -enai and -men are also common to Greek dialects.

110
 1. Introduction

II. ARMENIAN
The earliest testimony of the Armenian
language dates to the fifth century AD, the Bible
translation of Mesrob Mashtots. The earlier
history of the language is unclear and the subject
of much speculation. It is clear that Armenian is
an Indo-European language, but its development
is opaque.
NOTE. Proto-Armenian sound-laws are varied and
eccentric, such as IE *dw- yielding Arm. k-, and in
many cases still uncertain. In fact, that phonetic
development is usually seen as *dw- to erk-, based on
PIE numeral *dwo- ‘two’, a reconstruction Kortlandt
(Armeniaca 2003) dismisses, exposing alternative
Armenian manuscript, ca. 5 th -
etymologies for the usual examples.
6 th c. AD (PD)
PIE voiceless stops are aspirated in Proto-Armenian.
NOTE. That circumstance gave rise to the Glottalic theory, which postulates that this
aspiration may have been sub-phonematic already in Proto-Indo-European. In certain
contexts, these aspirated stops are further reduced to w, h or ∅ in Armenian – so e.g. PIE
*p’ots, into Arm. otn, Gk. pous ‘foot’; PIE *t’reis, Arm. erek’, Gk. treis ‘three’.

Armenia today (darkest colour), Armenian majorities (dark) and greatest extent
of the Kingdom of Armenia (light). Territory of the 6 Armenian Vilayets in the
Ottoman Empire (dotted line), and areas with significant Armenian population
prior to the Armenian Genocide (stripes). Ivaşca Flavius (2010).

111
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

III. INDO-IRANIAN
The Indo-Iranian or Aryan language group consists of two main language
subgroups, Indo-Aryan and Iranian. Nuristani has been suggested as a third one,
while Dardic is usually classified within Indo-Aryan.
The contemporary Indo-Iranian languages form the second largest sub-branch of
Late Indo-European (after North-West Indo-European), with more than one billion
speakers in total, stretching from Europe (Romani) and the Caucasus (Ossetian) to
East India (Bengali and Assamese). The largest in terms of native speakers are
Hindustani (Hindi and Urdu, ca. 540 million), Bengali (ca. 200 million), Punjabi
(ca. 100 million), Marathi and Persian (ca. 70 million each), Gujarati (ca. 45
million), Pashto (40 million), Oriya (ca. 30 million), Kurdish and Sindhi (ca. 20
million each).
While the archaeological identification of Pre-Proto-Indo-Iranians and Proto-
Indo-Iranians remains unsolved, it is believed that ca. 2500 BC a distinct Proto-
Indo-Iranian language must have been spoken in the eastern part of the previous
Yamna territory.
NOTE. Parpola (The formation of the Aryan branch of Indo-European, 1999) suggests the
following identifications:
Date range Archaeological culture Suggested by Parpola
2800-2000 Late Catacomb and Poltavka
LIE to Proto-Indo-Iranian.
BC cultures
Srubna and Abashevo
2000-1800 BC Proto-Iranian
cultures
2000-1800 BC Petrovka-Sintashta Proto-Indo-Aryan
“Proto-Dasa” Indo-Aryans establishing
themselves in the existing BMAC
1900-1700 BC BMAC
settlements, defeated by “Proto-
Rigvedic” Indo-Aryans around 1700
1900-1400 BC Cemetery H Indian Dasa
Indo-Aryan, including “Proto–Sauma-
1800-1000 BC Alakul-Fedorovo
Aryan” practicing the Soma cult
1700-1400 BC early Swat culture Proto-Rigvedic = Proto-Dardic
“Proto–Sauma-Dasa”, assimilation of
1700-1500 BC late BMAC
Proto-Dasa and Proto–Sauma-Aryan
Mitanni-Aryan (offshoot of “Proto-
1500-1000 BC Early West Iranian Grey Ware
Sauma-Dasa”)
late Swat culture and Punjab,
1400-800 BC late Rigvedic
Painted Grey Ware
1400-1100 BC Yaz II-III, Seistan Proto-Avestan
Gurgan Buff Ware, Late West
1100-1000 BC Proto-Persian, Proto-Median
Iranian Buff Ware
1000-400 BC Iron Age cultures of Xinjang Proto-Saka

112
 1. Introduction

It is generally believed that early Indo-Iranian contacts with the easternmost part
of North-West IE (Pre-Balto-Slavic) accounts for their shared linguistic features,
such as satemisation and Ruki sound law. Assuming – as it is commonly done –
that both phonetic trends were late developments after the LIE community, an early
North-West–South-East Sprachbund or dialect continuum must have taken place
before the Proto-Indo-Iranian migration to the East.
NOTE. From a linguistic point of view, Burrow (1955): “(…) in the case of Sanskrit
migrations at a comparatively late date took it to the extreme East of the Indo-European
domain. Before this period its ancestor, primitive Indo-Iranian must have held a fairly
central position, being directly in contact with the other dialects of the satem-group, and
having to the East of it that form of Indo-European which eventually turned into the dialects
A and B of Chinese Turkestan. Its position can further be determined by the especially close
relations which are found to exist between it and Balto-Slavonic. Since the Balts and the Slavs
are not likely to have moved far from the positions in which they are to be found in their
earliest recorded history, the original location of Indo-Iranian towards the South-East of this
area becomes highly probable.”

Archaeological cultures associated with late Indo-Iranian migrations. The

early phases of the Andronovo culture have often been seen to offer a
“staging area” for Indo-Iranian movements. The BMAC offers the Central
Asian cultural “filter” through which some argue the Indo-Iranians must
have passed southwards to such sites as Mehrgarh and Sibri. Mallory–
Adams (1997) (Dbachmann 2005)

113
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

As we have seen Kortlandt’s (1990) interpretation of linguistic contacts according to

Mallory’s (1989) account of archaeological events (v.s. §1.7.1. North-West Indo-European):
“If the speakers of the other satem languages can be assigned to the Yamnaya horizon and
the western Indo-Europeans to the Corded Ware horizon, it is attractive to assign the
ancestors of the Balts and the Slavs to the Middle Dnieper culture”, an identification also
made by Anthony (2007).
Similarly, Adrados–Bernabé–Mendoza (1995-1998), about the dialectal situation of Slavic
(from a linguistic point of view): “To a layer of archaisms, shared or not with other languages
(…) Slavic added different innovations, some common to Baltic. Some of them are shared
with Germanic, as the oblique cases in -m and feminine participle; others with Indo-Iranian,
so satemisation, Ruki sound law (more present in Slavic than in Baltic) (…) Most probably,
those common characteristics come from a recent time, from secondary contacts between
[N.LIE] (whose rearguard was formed by Balto-Slavs) and [S.LIE] (in a time when Greeks
were not in contact anymore, they had already migrated to Greece).

Current distribution of Indo-Aryan languages, A Historical Atlas of South

Asia (1992) (Dbachmann 2008)

114
 1. Introduction

Because Proto-Indo-Aryan is assumed to have been spoken ca. 2000-1500 BC

(preceding Vedic cultures), historical linguists broadly estimate that the continuum
of Indo-Iranian languages had to diverge ca. 2200-2000 BC, if not earlier. The
Aryan expansion before the Indo-Iranian split – for which the terminus ante quem
is 2000 BC (cf. Mallory 1989) –, implies centuries of previous Pre-Indo-Aryan and
Pre-Iranian differentiation. This time is commonly identified with the early bearers
of the Andronovo culture (Sintashta-Petrovka-Arkaim, in Southern Urals, 2200-
1600 BC), who spread over an area of the Eurasian steppe that borders the Ural
River on the west, the Tian Shan on the east – where the Indo-Iranians took over
the area occupied by the earlier Afanasevo culture –, and Transoxiana and the
Hindu Kush on the south.
A Two-wave model of Indo-Iranian expansion has been proposed (Burrow 1973,
Parpola 1999), strongly associated with the chariot. Indo-Aryans left linguistic
remains in a Hittite horse-training manual written by one “Kikkuli the Mitannian”.
Other evidence is found in references to the names of Mitanni rulers and the gods
they swore by in treaties; these remains are found in the archives of the Mitanni’s
neighbours, and the time period for this is about 1500 BC.
NOTE. The standard model for the entry of the Indo-European languages into South Asia
is that the First Wave went over the Hindu Kush, either into the headwaters of the Indus and
later the Ganges. The earliest stratum of Vedic Sanskrit, preserved only in the Rigveda, is
assigned to roughly 1500 BC. From the Indus, the Indo-Aryan languages spread from ca.
1500 BC to ca. 500 BC, over the northern and central parts of the subcontinent, sparing the
extreme south. The Indo-Aryans in these areas established several powerful kingdoms and
principalities in the region, from eastern Afghanistan to the doorstep of Bengal.

Current distribution of Iranian dialects. Dbachmann(2006)

115
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

The Second Wave is interpreted as the Iranian wave. The Iranians would take over all of
Central Asia, Iran, and for a considerable period, dominate the European steppe (the modern
Ukraine) and intrude north into Russia and west into central and Eastern Europe well into
historic times and as late as the Common Era. The first Iranians to reach the Black Sea may
have been the Cimmerians in the eighth century BC, although their linguistic affiliation is
uncertain. They were followed by the Scythians, who are considered a western branch of the
Central Asian Sakas, and the Sarmatian tribes.
The main changes separating Proto-Indo-Iranian from Late Indo-European
include (according to Burrow 1955 and Fortson 2004):
• Early satemisation trend: The satem shift, consisting of two sets of related
changes:
o Palatalisation of LIE velars: *k →t̠ɕ͡ , *g→d̠ ͡ʑ, *gh→d̠ ͡ʑ h; as, *km̥tóm →
ķatám, *gónu → ģānu, *ghéimn̥ → ģhima-.
o Merge of LIE labiovelars with plain velars: *kw→k , *gw→g, *gwh→gh; as,
*kʷo-→ ka-, *gwou- → gau-, *gwhormó- → gharmá-.
• These plain velars, when before a front vowel (pre-PII *i or *e) or the glide *j,
were then palatalised to affricates: *k→t͡ʃ, *g→d͡ʒ, *gh→d͡ʒh; as, *kwe → ḳa-,
*gwīwós → ġīwás, *gwhénti → ġhanti.

NOTE. This palatalisation is often called the Law of Palatals. It must have happened before
the merge of PIE *e, *o, with *a. An illustrative example is found in weak perfect stem *kwe-
kwr- ‘did’ → pre-PII *ke-kr- → *ḳe-kr- → PII *ḳa-kr- (Ved. cakr-, Av. and O.Pers. caxr-).
• Before a dental occlusive, ḳ → š, ġ → ž; ġʰ→ž, with aspiration of the occlusive;
as, *oķtṓ→ ašt, *mr̥ģt- → mṛžd-, *uģʰtó- → uždʰá-.
• The sequence *ķs was simplified to šš; as, *aks- → ášš-.
• Assimilation of LIE vowels *e, *o → a; *ē, *ō → ā.
• Interconsonantal and word-final LIE *H→ PII i, cf. *ph2tḗr → PII pitr, *-
medʰH →*-madhi.
• LIE *m̥ *n̥ merge with a; as, *km̥tóm → ķatám, *mn̥tó- → matá-.
• Bartholomae’s law: an aspirate immediately followed by a voiceless consonant
becomes voiced stop + voiced aspirate. In addition, *dh+t → dzdh; as, *ubhto-
→ ubdha-, *urdhto- → urdzdha-, *augh-tá- → augdhá-.
• The Ruki rule: *s is retracted to š when immediately following *r *r̥ *u *k or *i.
Its allophone *z likewise becomes ž; as, *wers- → warš-, *pr̥sto → pṛšta-,
*geus- → ģauš-, *kʷsep- → kšap-, *wis- → wiš-, *nisdo- → nižda-.

116
 1. Introduction

• Brugmann’s law: *o in an open syllable lengthens to ō; *deh₃tór-m̥ → Pre-PII

*deh₃tṓr-m̥* → dātāram.
• Resonants are generally stable in PII, but for the confusion *l/*r, which in the
oldest Rigveda and in Avestan gives a trend LIE *l̥ → PII ṛ, as well as *l→r; as,
*wĺ̥kʷos → wḷkas / wṛkas.
A synoptic table of Indo-Iranian phonetic system:
Coronals Affricates Gutturals
Labials Velars
dental/ post- alveolo- post-
alveolar alveolar palatal alveolar

Voiceless p t ķ ḳ k ʔ
Plosive Aspirated
th kh
Voiced b d ģ ġ g
Aspirated bh dh ģh ġh gh
Nasals m n
Fricatives Voiceless s š h
Voiced (z) (ž)
Liquids l r
Approximant w j

IV. PALAEO-BALKAN LANGUAGES

A. PHRYGIAN
The Phrygian
language was
spoken by the
Phrygians, a
people that settled
in Asia Minor
during the Bronze
Age. It survived
probably into the
sixth century AD,
when it was
Phrygian Kingdom ca. 800-700 BC, from “Atlas of the Bible
replaced by Greek.
Lands” (1959) (2011 from PD)

117
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

Ancient historians and myths sometimes did associate Phrygian with Thracian and
maybe even Armenian, on grounds of classical sources. Herodotus recorded the
Macedonian account that Phrygians migrated into Asia Minor from Thrace, and
stated that the Armenians were colonists of the Phrygians, still considered the same
in the time of Xerxes I. The earliest mention of Phrygian in Greek sources, in the
Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite, depicts it as different from Trojan: in the hymn,
Aphrodite, disguising herself as a mortal to seduce the Trojan prince Anchises, tells
him:
“Otreus of famous name is my father, if so be you have heard of him, and he
reigns over all Phrygia rich in fortresses. But I know your speech well beside my
own, for a Trojan nurse brought me up at home”. Of Trojan, unfortunately, nothing
is known.
Phrygian is attested by two corpora, one, Palaeo-Phrygian, from around 800 BC
and later, and another after a period of several centuries, Neo-Phrygian, from
around the beginning of the Common Era. The Palaeo-Phrygian corpus is further
divided geographically into inscriptions of Midas-city, Gordion, Central, Bithynia,
Pteria, Tyana, Daskyleion, Bayindir, and “various”. The Mysian inscriptions show a
language classified as a separate Phrygian dialect, written in an alphabet with an
additional letter, the “Mysian s”. We can reconstruct some words with the help of
some inscriptions written with a script similar to the Greek one.
Its structure, what can be recovered from it, was typically LIE, with at least three
nominal cases, three gender classes and two grammatical numbers, while the verbs
were conjugated for tense, voice, mood, person and number.
Phrygian seems to exhibit an augment, like Greek and Armenian, as in Phryg.
eberet, probably corresponding to PIE *é-bher-e-t (cf. Gk. epheret).
A sizable body of Phrygian words is theoretically known; however, the meaning
and etymologies and even correct forms of many Phrygian words (mostly extracted
from inscriptions) are still being debated.
Phrygian words with possible PIE origin and Graeco-Armenian cognates include:
• Phryg. bekos ‘bread’, from PIE *bheh3g-; cf. Gk. phōgō ‘to roast’.
• Phryg. bedu ‘water’, from PIE *wed-; cf. Arm. get ‘river’.
• Phryg. anar ‘husband, man’, PIE *h2ner- ‘man’; cf. Gk. aner- ‘man, husband’.
• Phryg. belte ‘swamp’, from PIE root *bhel- ‘to gleam’; cf. Gk. baltos ‘swamp’.
• Phryg. brater ‘brother’, from PIE *bhreh2ter-; cf. Gk. phrāter-.

118
 1. Introduction

• Phryg. ad-daket ‘does, causes’, from PIE stem *dhē-k-; cf. Gk. ethēka.
• Phryg. germe ‘warm’, from PIE *gwher-mo-; cf. Gk. thermos.
• Phryg. gdan ‘earth’, from PIE *dhghom-; cf. Gk. khthōn.
NOTE. For more information on similarities between Greek and Phrygian, see Neumann
(Phrygisch und Griechisch, 1988).

B. ILLYRIAN

The Illyrian languages are a group of Indo-European languages that were spoken
in the western part of the Balkans in former times by ethnic groups identified as
Illyrians: Delmatae, Pannoni, Illyrioi, Autariates, Taulanti.

Roman provinces in the Balkans, Droysens Historischem Handatlas (1886)

The main source of authoritative information about the Illyrian language consists
of a handful of Illyrian words cited in classical sources, and numerous examples of
Illyrian anthroponyms, ethnonyms, toponyms and hydronyms. Some sound-
changes and other language features are deduced from what remains of the Illyrian
languages, but because no writings in Illyrian are known, there is not sufficient

119
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

evidence to clarify its place within the Indo-European language family aside from
its probable centum nature.
NOTE. A grouping of Illyrian with the Messapian language has been proposed for about a
century, but remains an unproven hypothesis. The theory is based on classical sources,
archaeology, as well as onomastic considerations. Messapian material culture bears a
number of similarities to Illyrian material culture. Some Messapian anthroponyms have
close Illyrian equivalents. A relation to the Venetic language and Liburnian language, once
spoken in northeastern Italy and Liburnia respectively, is also proposed.

B. THRACIAN
Excluding Dacian, whose status as a Thracian language is disputed, Thracian was
spoken in what is now southern Bulgaria, parts of Serbia, the Republic of
Macedonia, Northern Greece – especially prior to Ancient Macedonian expansion –
, throughout Thrace (including European Turkey) and in parts of Bithynia (North-
Western Anatolia). Most of the Thracians were eventually Hellenised (in the
province of Thrace) or Romanised (in Moesia, Dacia, etc.), with the last remnants
surviving in remote areas until the fifth century AD.
NOTE. As an extinct language with only a few short inscriptions attributed to it, there is
little known about the Thracian language, but a number of features are agreed upon. A
number of probable Thracian words are found in inscriptions – most of them written with
Greek script – on buildings, coins, and other artifacts. Some Greek lexical elements may
derive from Thracian, such as balios ‘dappled’ (< PIE *bhel- ‘to shine’, Pokorny also cites
Illyrian as possible source), bounos ‘hill, mound’, etc.

C. DACIAN
The Dacian language was spoken by the ancient people of Dacia. It is often
considered to have been either a northern variant of the Thracian language, or
closely related to it.
There are almost no written documents in Dacian. It used to be one of the major
languages of South-Eastern Europe, stretching from what is now Eastern Hungary
to the Black Sea shore. Based on archaeological findings, the origins of the Dacian
culture are believed to be in Moldavia, being identified as an evolution of the Iron
Age Basarabi culture.

It is unclear exactly when the Dacian language became extinct, or even whether it
has a living descendant. The initial Roman conquest of part of Dacia did not put an
end to the language, as free Dacian tribes such as the Carpi may have continued to
speak Dacian in Moldavia and adjacent regions as late as the sixth or seventh

120
 1. Introduction

century AD, still capable of leaving some influences in the forming of Slavic
languages.

E. PAIONIAN
The Paionian language is the poorly attested language of the ancient Paionians,
whose kingdom once stretched north of Macedon into Dardania and in earlier times
into southwestern Thrace.
Classical sources usually considered the Paionians distinct from Thracians or
Illyrians, comprising their own ethnicity and language. Athenaeus seemingly
connected the Paionian tongue to the Mysian language, itself barely attested. If
correct, this could mean that Paionian was an Anatolian language. On the other
hand, the Paionians were sometimes regarded as descendants of Phrygians, which
may put Paionian on the same linguistic branch as the Phrygian language.
NOTE. Modern linguists are uncertain on the classification of Paionian, due to the extreme
scarcity of materials we have on this language. However, it seems that Paionian was an
independent IE dialect. It shows a/o distinction and does not appear to have undergone
satemisation. The Indo-European voiced aspirates became plain voiced consonants, i.e.
*bh→b, *dh→d, *gh→g, *gwh→gw; as in Illyrian, Thracian, Macedonian and Phrygian (but unlike
Greek).

F. ANCIENT MACEDONIAN
The Ancient Macedonian language was the tongue of the Ancient Macedonians. It
was spoken in Macedon during the first millennium BC. Marginalised from the fifth
century BC, it was gradually replaced by the common Greek dialect of the Hellenistic
Era. It was probably spoken predominantly in the inland regions away from the
coast. It is as yet undetermined whether the language was a dialect of Greek, a
sibling language to Greek, or an Indo-European language which is a close cousin to
Greek and also related to Thracian and Phrygian.
Knowledge of the language is very limited, because there are no surviving texts
that are indisputably written in the language. However, a body of authentic
Macedonian words has been assembled from ancient sources, mainly from coin
inscriptions, and from the fifth century lexicon of Hesychius of Alexandria,
amounting to about 150 words and 200 proper names. Most of these are confidently
identifiable as Greek, but some of them are not easily reconciled with standard
Greek phonology. The 6,000 surviving Macedonian inscriptions are in the Greek
Attic dialect.

121
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

NOTE. Suggested phylogenetic classifications of Macedonian include: An Indo-European

language which is a close cousin to Greek and also related to Thracian and Phrygian
languages, suggested by A. Meillet (1913) and I. I. Russu (1938), or part of a Sprachbund
encompassing Thracian, Illyrian and Greek (Kretschmer 1896, E. Schwyzer 1959). An
“Illyrian” dialect mixed with Greek, suggested by K. O. Müller (1825) and by G. Bonfante
(1987). Various explicitly “Greek” scenarios: A Greek dialect, part of the North-Western
(Locrian, Aetolian, Phocidian, Epirote) variants of Doric Greek, suggested amongst others
by N.G.L. Hammond (1989) Olivier Masson (1996) and Michael Meier-Brügger (2003). A
northern Greek dialect, related to Aeolic Greek and Thessalian, suggested among others by
A.Fick (1874) and O.Hoffmann (1906). A Greek dialect with a non-Indo-European substratal
influence, suggested by M. Sakellariou (1983). A sibling language of Greek within Indo-
European, Macedonian and Greek forming two subbranches of a Greco-Macedonian
subgroup within Indo-European (sometimes called “Hellenic”), suggested by Joseph (2001)
and others.
The Pella curse tablet, a text written in a distinct Doric Greek idiom, found in Pella
in 1986, dated to between mid to early fourth century BC, has been forwarded as an
argument that the Ancient Macedonian language was a dialect of North-Western
Greek. Before the discovery it was proposed that the Macedonian dialect was an
early form of Greek, spoken alongside Doric proper at that time.

The Pella katadesmos is a katadesmos (a curse, or magic spell) inscribed on a lead

scroll, probably dating to 380-350 BC. It was found in Pella in 1986 (PD)

NOTE. Olivier Masson thinks that “in contrast with earlier views which made of it an Aeolic
dialect (O.Hoffmann compared Thessalian) we must by now think of a link with North-West
Greek (Locrian, Aetolian, Phocidian, Epirote). This view is supported by the recent discovery
at Pella of a curse tablet which may well be the first ‘Macedonian’ text attested (...); the text
includes an adverb “opoka” which is not Thessalian”. Also, James L. O’Neil states that the
“curse tablet from Pella shows word forms which are clearly Doric, but a different form of
Doric from any of the west Greek dialects of areas adjoining Macedon. Three other, very brief,
fourth century inscriptions are also indubitably Doric. These show that a Doric dialect was
spoken in Macedon, as we would expect from the West Greek forms of Greek names found
in Macedon. And yet later Macedonian inscriptions are in Koine avoiding both Doric forms
and the Macedonian voicing of consonants. The native Macedonian dialect had become
unsuitable for written documents.”

122
 1. Introduction

From the few words that survive, a notable sound-law may be ascertained, that
PIE voiced aspirates *dh, *bh, *gh, appear as δ (=d[h]), β (=b[h]), γ (=g[h]), in contrast
to Greek dialects, which unvoiced them to θ (=th), φ (=ph), χ (=kh).
NOTE. Since these languages are all known via the Greek alphabet, which has no signs for
voiced aspirates, it is unclear whether de-aspiration had really taken place, or whether the
supposed voiced stops β, δ, γ were just picked as the closest matches to express voiced
aspirates PIE *bh, *dh, *gh. As to Macedonian β, δ, γ = Greek φ, θ, χ, Claude Brixhe (1996)
suggests that it may have been a later development: The letters may already have designated
not voiced stops, i.e. [b, d, g], but voiced fricatives, i.e. [β, δ, γ], due to a voicing of the
voiceless fricatives [φ, θ, x] (= Classical Attic [ph, th, kh]). Brian Joseph (2001) sums up that
“The slender evidence is open to different interpretations, so that no definitive answer is
really possible”, but cautions that “most likely, Ancient Macedonian was not simply an
Ancient Greek dialect on a par with Attic or Aeolic”. In this sense, some authors also call it a
“deviant Greek dialect”.
• PIE *dhenh2- ‘to leave’, → A.Mac. δανός (δanós) ‘death’; cf. Attic θάνατος (thánatos). PIE
*h2aidh- → A.Mac. ἄδραια (aδraia) ‘bright weather’, Attic αἰθρία (aithría).
• PIE *bhasko- → A.Mac. βάσκιοι (βáskioi) ‘fasces’. Compare also for A.Mac. ἀϐροῦτες
(aβroûtes) or ἀϐροῦϝες (aβroûwes), Attic ὀφρῦς (ophrûs) ‘eyebrows’; for Mac. Βερενίκη
(Βere-níkē), Attic Φερενίκη (Phere-níkē) ‘bearing victory’.
o According to Herodotus (ca. 440 BC), the Macedonians claimed that the Phryges were
called Brygoi (<PIE *bhrugo-) before migrating from Thrace to Anatolia ca. 1200 BC.
o In Aristophanes’ The Birds, the form κεϐλήπυρις (keβlē-pyris) ‘red-cap (bird)’, shows
a voiced stop instead of a standard Greek unvoiced aspirate, i.e. Macedonian κεϐ(α)λή
(keβalē) vs. Greek κεφαλή (kephalē) ‘head’.
• If A.Mac. γοτάν (γotán) ‘pig’, is related to PIE *gwou- ‘cow’, this would indicate that the
labiovelars were either intact (hence *gwotán), or merged with the velars, unlike the usual
Gk. βοῦς (boûs). Such deviations, however, are not unknown within Greek dialects;
compare Dor. γλεπ- (glep-) for common Gk. βλεπ- (blep-), as well as Dor. γλάχων
(gláchōn) and Ion. γλήχων (glēchōn) for Gk. βλήχων (blēchōn).
• Examples suggest that voiced velar stops were devoiced, especially word-initially: PIE
*genu- → A.Mac. κάναδοι (kánadoi) ‘jaws’; PIE *gombh- → A.Mac. κόμϐους (kómbous)
‘molars’.
o Compared to Greek words, there is A.Mac. ἀρκόν (arkón) vs. Attic ἀργός (argós); the
Macedonian toponym Akesamenai, from the Pierian name Akesamenos – if Akesa- is
cognate to Greek agassomai, agamai ‘to astonish’; cf. also the Thracian name
Agassamenos.

123
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

V. ALBANIAN
Albanian is spoken by over 8 million people primarily in Albania, Kosovo, and the
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, but also by smaller numbers of ethnic
Albanians in other parts of
the Balkans, along the
eastern coast of Italy and
in Sicily. It has no living
close relatives among the
modern IE languages.
There is no consensus over
its origin and dialectal
classification.
References to the
existence of Albanian
survive from the
fourteenth century AD,
but without recording any
specific words. The oldest
surviving documents
written in Albanian are the
(Megistias 2010)
Formula e Pagëzimit
(Baptismal formula), Unte paghesont premenit Atit et birit et spertit senit ‘I baptise
thee in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit’, recorded by Pal
Engjelli, Bishop of Durres in 1462 in the Gheg dialect, and some New Testament
verses from that period.

1.7.3. ANATOLIAN LANGUAGES

The Anatolian branch is generally considered the earliest to split off from the Proto-
Indo-European language, from a stage referred to as Proto-Indo-Hittite (PIH).
Typically a date ca. 4500-3500 BC is assumed for the separation.
NOTE. A long period of time is necessary for Proto-Anatolian to develop into Common
Anatolian. Craig Melchert and Alexander Lehrman agreed that a separation date of about
4000 BCE between Proto-Anatolian and the Proto-Indo-Hittite language community seems
reasonable. The millennium or so around 4000 BC, say 4500 to 3500 BC, constitutes the
latest window within which Proto-Anatolian is likely to have separated.

124
 1. Introduction

Within a Kurgan framework, there are two possibilities of how early Anatolian speakers
could have reached Anatolia: from the north via the Caucasus, and from the west, via the
Balkans. The archaeological identification of Anatolian speakers remains highly speculative,
as it depends on the broad guesstimates that historical linguistics is able to offer.
Nevertheless, the Balkans route appears to be somewhat more likely for archaeologists; so
e.g. Mallory (1989) and Steiner (1990).

Map of the Hittite Empire at its greatest extent under Suppiluliuma I (ca.1350-1322
BC) and Mursili II (ca. 1321–1295 BC). (Javier Fernandez-Vina 2010).

Attested dialects of the Anatolian branch are:

• Hittite (nesili), attested from ca. 1800 BC to 1100 BC, official language of the
Hittite Empire.
• Luwian (luwili), close relative of Hittite spoken in Arzawa, to the southwest of
the core Hittite area.
• Palaic, spoken in north-central Anatolia, extinct around the thirteenth century
BC, known only fragmentarily from quoted prayers in Hittite texts.
• Lycian, spoken in Lycia in the Iron Age, most likely a descendant of Luwian,
became extinct ca. the first century BC. A fragmentary language, it is also a likely
candidate for the language spoken by Trojans.
• Lydian, spoken in Lydia, extinct ca. the first century BC, fragmentary, possibly
from the same dialect group as Hittite.

125
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

• Carian, spoken in Caria, fragmentarily attested from graffiti by Carian

mercenaries in Egypt from ca. the seventh century BC, extinct ca. the thirteenth
century BC.
• Pisidian and Sidetic
(Pamphylian),
fragmentary.
• Milyan, known from a
single inscription.
Anatolia was heavily
Hellenised following the
conquests of Alexander the
Clay tablet in Hittite cuneiform containing the
Great, and it is generally correpondance between the Luwian King of Arzawa
thought that by the first and the Pharaoh of Egypt. (PD)
century BC the native languages of the area were extinct.
Hittite proper is known from cuneiform tablets and inscriptions erected by the
Hittite kings and written in an adapted form of Old Assyrian cuneiform
orthography. Owing to the predominantly syllabic nature of the script, it is difficult
to ascertain the precise phonetic qualities of some Hittite sounds.

The Hittite language has traditionally been stratified – partly on linguistic and
partly on paleographic grounds – into Old Hittite, Middle Hittite and New or Neo-
Hittite, corresponding to the Old, Middle and New Kingdoms of the Hittite Empire,
ca. 1750-1500 BC, 1500-1430 BC and 1430-1180 BC, respectively.
Luwian was spoken by population groups in Arzawa, to the west or southwest of
the core Hittite area. In the oldest texts, e.g. the Hittite Code, the Luwian-speaking
areas including Arzawa and Kizzuwatna were called Luwia. From this homeland,
Luwian speakers gradually spread through Anatolia and became a contributing
factor to the downfall, after ca. 1180 BC, of the Hittite Empire, where it was already
widely spoken. Luwian was also the language spoken in the Neo-Hittite states of
Syria, such as Milid and Carchemish, as well as in the central Anatolian kingdom of
Tabal that flourished around 900 BC. Luwian has been preserved in two forms,
named after the writing systems used: Cuneiform Luwian and Hieroglyphic Luwian.
For the most part, the immediate ancestor of the known Anatolian languages,
Common Anatolian (a late Proto-Anatolian dialect spoken ca. 3000-2000 BC) has
been reconstructed on the basis of Hittite. However, the usage of Hittite cuneiform

126
 1. Introduction

writing system limits the enterprise of understanding and reconstructing Anatolian

phonology, partly due to the deficiency of the adopted Akkadian cuneiform syllabary
to represent Hittite sounds, and partly due to the Hittite scribal practices.

Luwian language spreading, second to first millennium BC (Hendrik Tammen

2006)
NOTE. This especially pertains to what appears to be confusion of voiceless and voiced
dental stops, where signs -dV- and -tV- are employed interchangeably different attestations
of the same word. Furthermore, in the syllables of the structure VC only the signs with
voiceless stops are generally used. Distribution of spellings with single and geminated
consonants in the oldest extant monuments indicates that the reflexes of PIE voiceless stops
were spelled as double consonants and the reflexes of Proto-Indo-European voiced stops as
single consonants.
Known changes from Indo-Hittite into Common Anatolian include:
• Voiced aspirates merged with voiced stops: *dh→*d, *bh→*b, *gh→*g.
• Voiceless stops become voiced after accented long vowel or diphthong: PIH
*wēk- → CA *wēg- (cf. Hitt. wēk- ‘ask for’); PIH *dheh1ti ‘putting’ → CA *dǣdi (cf.
Luw. taac- ‘votive offering’).
• Conditioned allophone PIH *tj- → CA *tsj-, as Hittite still shows.
• PIH *h1 is lost in CA, but for *eh1→*ǣ, appearing as Hitt., Pal. ē, Luw., Lyc., Lyd.
ā; word-initial *h2→*x, non-initial *h2→*h; *h3→*h.

127
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

NOTE 1. Melchert proposes that CA *x (voiceless fricative) is lenited to *h (voiced fricative)

under the same conditions as voiceless stops. Also, word-initial *h3 is assumed by some
scholars to have been already lost in CA.
NOTE 2. There is an important assimilation of laryngeals within CA: a sequence *-VRHV-
becomes -VRRV-; cf. PIH *sperh1V- → Hitt. isparr- ‘kick flat’; PIH *sun-h3-V- → Hitt. sunna-
‘fill’, Pal. sunnuttil- ‘outpouring’; etc.
• PIH resonants are generally stable in CA. Only word-initial *r̥ has been
eliminated. Word-initial *je- shows a trend to become CA *e-, but the trend is not
complete in CA, as Hittite shows.
• Diphthong evolved as PIH *ei → CA *ę̄; PIH *eu → CA *ū. PIE *oi, *ai, *ou, *au,
appear also in CA.
NOTE. Common Anatolian preserves PIE vowel system basically intact. Some cite the
merger of PIH *o and (a controversial) *a as a Common Anatolian innovation, but according
to Melchert that merger was secondary shared innovation in Hittite, Palaic and Luwian, but
not in Lycian. Also, the lengthening of accented short vowels in open syllables cannot be of
Common Anatolian, and neither can lengthening in accented closed syllables.
• The CA nominal system shows an productive declension in *-i, *-u, considered
an archaic feature retained from PIH.
• There are only two grammatical genders, animate and inanimate; this has
usually been interpreted as the original system in PIH.
• Hittite verbs are inflected according to two general verbal classes, the mi- and
the hi-conjugation. They had two voices (active and mediopassive), two moods
(indicative and imperative), and two tenses (present and past), two infinitive
forms, one verbal substantive, a supine, and a participle.

128
 PART II
PHONOLOGY &
MORPHOLOGY

By Carlos Quiles & Fernando López-Menchero

 2. Phonology

2. PHONOLOGY
2.1. CLASSIFICATION OF SOUNDS

2.1.1. The vowels are short [a], [e], [i], [o], [u], written a, e, i, o, u, and long [],
[], [], [], [], written ā, ē, ī, ō, ū, respectively. The other sounds are consonants.

The Indo-European diphthongs proper are [ei̯], [oi̯], [ai̯], written ei, oi, ai, and
[eu̯], [ou̯], [au̯], written eu, ou, au. Both vowel sounds are heard, one following the
other in the same syllable.

NOTE. For the so-called long diphthongs [i̯], [i̯], [i̯], written ēi, ōi, āi, and [u̯], [u̯],
[u̯], written ēu, ōu, āu, which remained only in Indo-Iranian, Greek and partly in Baltic
languages, Schulze (1885) interpreted a regular correspondence of the type āi/ā/ī, which
came respectively from the full grade of the long diphthong, the full grade before consonant
(where the second element was lost), and the zero-grade (a contraction of schwa with the
semivowel). Martinet (1953) proposed that laryngeals were behind those long diphthongs.

In any case, in the languages in which they are retained, long diphthongs have not a longer
duration than normal diphthongs; phonologically they are equivalent, as Vedic and Greek
metric shows. Adrados–Bernabé–Mendoza (1995-1998): “[t]he difference, therefore, is not
the duration of the group, but the relative duration of their components; in other words, e.g.
ei and ēi have the same phonological duration (they are long, as opposed to a brief vowel),
but in ei both elements have approximately the same duration, whereas in ēi the duration of
i is perceptibly shorter than e. Because of that, the name ‘long first-element diphthongs’ is
more appropriate to refer to these phonemes.” Cf. Allen (“Long and short diphthongs”, in
Morpurgo Davies and Meid (eds.), 1976) for an analysis of these diphthongs.

Strictly speaking, phoneticians do not consider the so-called rising diphthongs,

[je], [jo], [ja], [j], [j], [j], nor [we], [wo], [wa], [w], [w], [w], as diphthongs
proper, but rather sequences of glide and vowel.

The formations usually called triphthongs are [jei̯], [joi̯], [jai̯], [jeu̯], [jou̯], [jau̯], as
well as [wei̯], [woi̯], [wai̯], [weu̯], [wou̯], [wau̯]; and none can be strictly named
triphthong, since they are formed by a consonantal sound [j] or [w] followed by a
diphthong. The rest of possible formations are made up of a diphthong and a vowel.

NOTE. Whilst most Indo-Europeanists differentiate between sequences of approximant

and vowel (rising diphthongs) from true falling diphthongs in their transcriptions, i.e.
writing [je] (from [i]+[e]) but [ei] or [ei̯] (from [e]+[i]), some use a different approach,
considering all of them combinations of vowel plus glide or glide plus vowel, i.e. writing [je]
and [ej], or [i̯e] and [ei̯].

131
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

2.1.2. Consonants are either voiced (sonant) or voiceless (surd). Voiced consonants
are pronounced with vocal cords vibration, as opposed to voiceless consonants,
where the vocal cords are relaxed.

a. The voiced consonants are [b], [d], [g], [gw], [l], [r] and [ɾ], [m], [n], [z], [j], [w].

b. The voiceless consonants are [p], [t], [k], [kw], [s].

c. The digraphs bh [bh], dh [dh], gh [gh] and ch [gwh] represent the Indo-European
voiced aspirates proper whereas th [th], kh [kh], represent voiceless aspirates.

NOTE. Although written as digraphs, each aspirate is considered a single consonant, not a
combination of ‘consonant plus aspiration’. The same is valid for labiovelars.

d. The resonants [r], [l], [m], [n], and the semivowels [j] and [w], can function both
as consonants and vowels, i.e. they can serve as syllabic border or centre.

NOTE. There is a clear difference between the vocalic allophones of the semivowels and
those of the resonants, though: the first, [i] and [u], are very stable as syllabic centre, whereas
the resonants ([r̥], [l̥], [m̥], [n̥]) aren’t, as they cannot be pronounced more open. Because of
that, more dialectal differences are found in their evolution.

2.1.3. The mutes are classified as follows:

voiceless voiced aspirated

labials p b bh
dentals t d dh
velars k g gh
labiovelars kw gw gwh
Labialised velars or Labiovelars q [kw], c [gw], ch [gwh], are pronounced like [k],
[g], [gh] respectively, but with rounded lips.
NOTE 1. Labiovelar stops are neutralised adjacent w, u or ū; as in Gk. bou-kólos ‘cowherd’,
from *gwou-kolos, dissimilated from *gwou-kwolos (which would have given Gk. *bou-pólos),
cf. Gk. ai-pólos ‘goatherd’<*ai(g)-kwolos (Fortson 2004). This is related to the question of
the actual existence of the groups [kw], [gw], and [ghw], different from (and similar or
identical in their dialectal outputs to) labialised [kw], [gw], and [gwh]. A distinction between
both is often found, though; as, kwōn, dog, ekwos, horse, ghwer-, wild, kweidos, white,
kwet-, cook (cf. O.Ind. kwathati), tekw-, run, etc. For a defence of such unified forms, see
e.g. Halla-aho <http://ethesis.helsinki.fi/julkaisut/hum/slavi/vk/halla-
aho/problems.pdf>.

NOTE 2. German Neogrammarians reconstructed a fourth series of phonemes, the

voiceless aspirates *ph, *th, *kh, to explain some irregularities in the outputs of the voiceless
row. Most Indo-Europeanists reject this fourth independent row of phonemes, and findings

132
 2. Phonology

of Indo-Iranian, Armenian and Greek have been explained as 1) expressive in origin, 2)

contact of a voiceless with a laryngeal phoneme, and 3) effect of a prior s. For support of the
fourth row, see e.g. Szemerényi (1985).

2.1.4. The so-called liquids are l, which represents the alveolar lateral approximant
[l], and r, pronounced in PIE and (at least occasionally) in most modern IE
languages as alveolar trill [r], today often allophonic with an alveolar tap [ɾ],
particularly in unstressed positions. These sounds are voiced.
NOTE. Cf. Ban’czerowski (“indoeuropäisches r und l”, LPosn. 12/13, 1968).

2.1.5. The nasals are labial [m], written m, and dental [n], written n. These are
voiced. The velar nasal [ŋ] – as ng in English sing – could have existed in IE as
allophone of [n] before velars.
NOTE. Erhart (Studien zur indoeuropäischen Morphologie, 1970) reconstructs three
nasals, *N, *M1 and *M2, this one a fricative seminasal with which he explains the results of
alternating m and w in some suffixes and roots; as, -ment-/-went-, men-/wen-, etc. He
left unexplained, though, under which conditions they would have changed.

2.1.6. The fricatives are voiceless [s] and voiced [z], with z being usually the output
of s before voiced consonants.
NOTE. [z] was already heard in Late Indo-European, as a different pronunciation
(allophone) of [s] before voiced stops, as can be clearly seen in LIE nisdos [nizdos] nest,
which comes from PIE roots ni-, down, and zero-grade -sd- of sed-, sit.

2.1.7. The semivowels are usually written j, and w. These are voiced.
NOTE. Some authors make a distinction between consonantal [j], [w], and vocalic [i], [u].
Actually, however, both appear as CIC and VJV, and never as CJC or VIV (and the same is
valid for resonants and their vocalic allophones).

2.1.8. Gemination appears in phonemes whose duration is long enough to be

perceived – their implosion and explosion, both audible – as distributed in two
syllables. They existed in LIE: in stops, as appās, attās (and tātā), dad, pappājō,
eat, or kakkājō, shit; in nasals, as annā, ammā (and mammā), mother, mum; in
liquids, as bōullā, buble; and in the sibilant, as kussō, kiss.
NOTE. They appear mostly in words of expressive origin, children vocabulary,
onomatopoeia, etc., which makes it more likely that PIE inherited gemination mainly as an
expressive resource, different from its central phonological system; a resource that was
retained for a long time by most IE languages as a recurrent possibility.

133
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

2.1.10. A synoptic table of the Indo-European phonetic system:

Labials Coronals Palatal Velars Labiovelar Gutturals
s
Voiceless p t k kw ʔ
Plosive
Aspirated th kh
Voiced b d g gw
Aspirated bh dh gh gwh
Nasals m n
Fricatives Voiceless s h
Voiced (z)
Liquids l, r
Approximant w j

NOTE. The glottal stop ʔ is the remain of the unified Late Indo-European laryngeal *H (v.s.
The Loss of Laryngeals). Its effect was usually a lengthening of the preceding vowel,
although remains might be found in some ancient lexica and frozen expressions, especially
accompanying sonorants. It is not usually written in this book, though; cf. gṇa’tó-, written
with a late West IE output gnātó- for practical reasons; see §5.5.2 for writing conventions in
numerals. Examples of its actual pronunciation are found today in Germanic; cf. American
Eng. cat [khæʔ(t)], BBC Eng. button [b̥ɐʔn̩ ], Ger. (northern dialects) Beamter [bəˈʔamtɐ],
(western dialects) Verwaltung [ˌfɔʔˈvaltʊŋ], Du. beamen [bəʔamən], or Danish hand [hɞnʔ].

2.2. PRONUNCIATION
2.2.1 The following pronunciation scheme is substantially that used by Indo-
European speakers at the end of the common Late Indo-European period.
2.2.2. Indo-European vowels and examples in English and French:

English French English French

ā father tard a idea partie
ē made (esp. Welsh) été (but longer) e met les
ī meet pire i chip ici
ō note (esp. Welsh) port o pot mot
ū boo court u put tout

NOTE. Following the mainstream laryngeal theory, Proto-Indo-Hittite knew only two
vowels, *e and *o, while the other commonly reconstructed vowels were earlier combinations
with laryngeals. Thus, short vowels a < *h2e; e < *(h1)e; o < *h3e, *(h1)o; long vowels ā <
*eh2; ē < *eh1; ō < *eh3, *oh. Different schools consider a or o to be the output of *h2o in Late
Indo-European. Short and long vowels ,  are variants of the semivowels j and w.

134
 2. Phonology

2.2.3. Falling diphthongs and equivalents in English and French:

i as in Eng. vein, Fr. Marseille u Eng. e (met) + u (put), Fr. Séoul

i as in Eng. oil, Fr. coyotes u as in Eng. know, Fr. au + ou
i as in Eng. Cairo, Fr. travail u as in Eng. out, Fr. caoutchouc

NOTE. In long diphthongs, the first component is pronounced longer than the second one,
but the duration of the group is the same (see above).

2.2.4. Consonants:
1. b, d, h, l, m, n, are pronounced as in English.
2. p, k, t, are plain as in Romance, Balto-Slavic, Greek or Indo-Iranian languages,
and unlike their English or German equivalents, cf. Fr. pôle vs. Eng. pain, Fr. qui vs.
Eng. key, Fr. tous vs. Eng. tongue.
NOTE. The aspirate or ‘h-sound’ which follows the English k disappears when the k is
preceded by an s, as in skill.
3. t and d are made by striking the edge of the teeth with the tip of the tongue, as
in Romance languages, and unlike English, in which it is made with the tongue
drawn a little further back, so that the tip strikes against the front of the palate or
the teethridge. In other words, the place of articulation is the same as for the English
th en thin.
4. g always as in get.
NOTE. For Balto-Slavic palatalisation, compare the g in garlic and gear, whispering the
two words, and note how before e and i the g is sounded farther forward in the mouth (more
‘palatal’) than before a or o. That is what we represent as [gj] when writing a palatalised g.
Similarly, we use [kj] pronounced as k in key compared to c in cold.
5. c stands for [gw], which is pronounced similar to [g] but with rounded lips.
Compare the initial consonant in good with get to feel the different articulation. The
voiceless q (which stands for [kw]) is similar to [k] but pronounced with rounded
lips; as c in cool, compared to c in car.
6. The voiceless aspirated kh, th, are pronounced very nearly like English word-
initial p, k, t, as in pen, ten, Ken, but much more aspirated. The extra aspiration
might be trained by using English words with combinations of p+h, t+h, k+h, i.e. to
the corresponding mutes with a following breath, as in loop-hole, hot-house, block-
house, pronouncing them first in two distinct parts and then more rapidly, trying to
run the p, k, t, on to the following syllable.

135
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

7. The aspiration of voiced bh, dh, gh, ch, must be a voiced aspiration, which
makes their pronunciation troublesome.
NOTE. “The key to the pronunciation of all these letters is learning to pronounce a voiced
h instead of the voiceless English h (it is true that some English speakers make voiced h a
rather infrequent allophone of h – e.g. in the word inherent). Voiced sounds are those made
with a vibration of the vocal cords. Some consonants are voiced, others voiceless. All vowels
are voiced, unless you whisper them. An extremely easy way to tell whether a sound is voiced
or not is to put your hands firmly over your ears: start by making a prolonged sss sound,
which is voiceless; then make a zzz sound, which is voiced, and you will hear the vibration of
the vocal cords very plainly as a droning in your ears. Lengthen the ordinary English h into
a prolonged breathing and it will be quite obviously voiceless. The task now is to modify this
breathing until you can hear that it is accompanied by the droning. The sound you are aiming
at is similar to the sound children sometimes use when they want to make someone jump.
The voiced h, once produced, can easily be combined with g, b, etc., and practice will soon
smooth the sound down until you do not seem to be trying to give your listeners a series of
heart attacks.” Coulson (2003).
8. j as the sound of y in yes (probably more lightly), never the common English
[d͡ʒ], as j in join; w as in will.
9. Indo-European r was probably slightly trilled with the tip of the tongue (still
common today in many IE languages), as in Scottish English curd. In the majority
of IE languages, and thus possibly in PIE, this sound is at least occasionally
allophonic with an alveolar tap [ɾ], pronounced like the intervocalic t or d in
American or Australian English, as in better.
NOTE. Speakers of Southern or BBC English should be careful always to give r its full value,
and should guard against letting it colour their pronunciation of a preceding vowel.
10. l is dental, and so even more like a French than an English l. It does not have
the ‘dark’ quality which in varying degrees an English l may have.
11. s is usually voiceless as in English sin, but there are situations in which it is
voiced (therefore pronounced z), when followed by voiced phonemes (see below).
12. Doubled letters, like ss, nn, etc., should be so pronounced that both members
of the combination are distinctly articulated, as s+s in English ‘less soap’, n+n in
Eng. greenness.

136
 2. Phonology

2.3. SYLLABLES
2.3.1. In many modern languages, there are as many syllables in a word as there
are separate vowels and diphthongs. Indo-European follows this rule too:
swe-sōr, sister, skrei-bhō, write, ne-wā, new, ju-góm, yoke.
NOTE. According to Fortson (2004): “PIE grouped sounds into syllables in much the same
way as Greek, Latin, Sanskrit and many other languages. In any given sequence of
consonants and vowels, the vowels constituted the syllabic peaks, and were linked to a
preceding consonant (if one was available) which formed the onset (beginning) of a syllable.
If two or more consonants occurred together in the middle of a word, they were usually split
between two syllables. In the abstract, a word of the structure VCCVCVCCVC would have
been syllabified VC.CV.CVC.CVC. It is possible that certain consonant clusters could group
together in the middle of a word as the onset of a syllable; if so, by a universal phonological
principle they would have also been able to form word-initial onsets”.
2.3.2. Resonants can also be centre of a syllable. It is possible to hear similar sound
sequences in English interesting (‘íntṛsting’), cattle (‘cattḷ’), bottom (‘bottṃ’), or
Brighton (‘Brightṇ’), as well as in other modern languages, as in German Haben
(‘Habṇ’), Czech hlt, Serbian srpski, etc. In this kind of syllables, it is the vocalic
resonant [r̥], [l̥], [m̥], or [n̥] –constrained allophones of [r], [l], [m], [n] –, the one
which functions as syllabic centre, instead of a vowel proper:
kṛ-di, heart, wḷ-qos, wolf, de-kṃ, ten, nō-mṇ, name.
NOTE. Words derived from these groups, represented CRC, are unstable and tend to add
auxiliary vowels before or after the resonants, i.e. C°RC or CR°C. Because of that, their
evolutions differ greatly in modern IE languages. For example, dṇghwā, language, evolved
probably as *d°nghwā, into PGmc. tung(w)ō, and later English tongue or German Zunge,
and into Old Latin dingwa, and then the initial d became l in Classic Latin, written lingua,
which is in turn the origin of Modern English words “linguistic” and “language”. For wḷqos
(cf. Ved. vṛkas < PII wṛkas), it evolved either as *w°lkwos into PGmc. *wulxwaz (cf. O.H.G.
wolf) or BSl. *wilkas (cf. O.C.S. vьlkъ), or as *wlukwos into Common Greek *wlukwos (cf. Gk.
lykos), Ita. *wlupos (cf. Lat. lupus).
2.3.3. According to Ringe (2006), each sequence of one or more resonants was
syllabified as follows. If the rightmost member of the sequence was adjacent to a
syllabic (i.e. a vowel, on the initial application of the rule), it remained nonsyllabic,
but if not, it was assigned to a syllable peak. The rule then iterated from right to left,
the output of each decision providing input to the next.
NOTE. Ringe (2006): Forms of kwon-, dog, neatly illustrate the process: The zero grade
was basically kwn- (since full-grade forms show that the high vocalic was an alternating
resonant, not an underlying syllabic high vowel). The genitive singular kwn-ós, dog’s, of a

137
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

dog, was syllabified as follows: the n was adjacent to a vowel and therefore remained
nonsyllabic; consequently the w was not adjacent to a syllabic, and it therefore surfaced as
syllabic u, giving kunós (cf. Skt. śúnas, Gk. kunós). On the locative plural kwn-sú, among
dogs, was syllabified as follows: the n was not adjacent to a vowel and therefore became
syllabic ṇ; consequently the w was adjacent to a syllabic and therefore remained nonsyllabic,
giving kwṇ-sú (cf. Skt śvásu). There are some exceptions to this rule, though.
2.3.4. Apart from the common vocalic resonant CRC, another, less stable sequence
is found in PIE *C°RV → CVRV/CRV; as, kerwos<*k°rwos, deer. Auxiliary vowels
were sometimes inserted in difficult *CRC; as, cemjō<*gw°mjō, come, etc.
NOTE. “Some have proposed a ‘reduced IE vowel’, the so-called schwa secundum (Hirt
1900, Güntert 1916, Sturtevant 1943), although they were probably just auxiliary vowels,
mere ‘allophonic vocoids’ initially necessary to articulate complex groups” (Adrados–
Bernabé–Mendoza 1995-1998). It is commonly accepted that LIE dialects did in fact add an
auxiliary vowel to this sequence at early times, probably before the first dialectal split: as
early Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic dialects show, vocalisation of most *CRV groups had
already happened when *CRC hadn’t still been vocalised, i.e. PIE *C°RV → *CVRV.
The most unstable *CRV sequences found in LIE are possibly those with a
resonant or glide as the initial consonant, i.e. *RRV; as, suffix -m°no-, m°rijar,
die, etc. Although cf. also adjectival suffix (-t/s)-°mo-, ordinal sépt°mos, etc.
NOTE. Such irregular forms kept their apparent alternating pattern in post-LIE period,
hence probably an auxiliary vowel was still inserted in the IEDs. The convention is to write
the dot ° before the resonant, but in this grammar we prefer a simpler notation, with the dot
below; since compounds of CRV cannot naturally include a resonant in IE, there is no
possible confusion. From the examples above, it is written here conventionally mṇo- (v.i.
§7.7.2), mṛijar, die (cf. Skt. mriyate, Av. miryeite, Gk. emarten, Lat. morior, O.C.S. mĭrǫ,
mrěti, Lith. mĩrti), suffix -(t/s)-ṃo- (v.i. §5.4), séptṃos, etc.
Most dialects show a common auxiliary vowel with maximal opening (in [a]) for the
resonant, into a general CaRV, even in those dialects that show different outputs (as well as
non-vocalisation) for CRC; i.e. m(a)rijōr, -(t/s)-amo-, séptamos, etc. Adrados–
Bernabé–Mendoza (1995-1998). As with consonant change, in this grammar the phonetically
correct notation is therefore avoided in favour of the phonemically correct notation.

2.3.5. In the division of words into syllables, these rules apply:

a. A single consonant is joined to the following vowel or diphthong; as lon-dhom,
land, rei-dhō, ride, etc.
b. Combinations of two or more consonants are regularly separated, and the first
consonant of the combination is joined to the preceding vowel; as legh-trom,
support, pen-qe, five, etc.

138
 2. Phonology

When a consonant is followed by a resonant or a glide, the consonants are not

separated, even in the middle of a word and preceded by a vowel; as, a-gros, field,
me-dhjos, middle.
c. In compounds, the parts are usually separated; as a-pó-sta-tis, distance, from
apo + statis.
2.3.6. The semivowels [j], [w] are more stable than resonants when they are
syllable centres, i.e. [i] or [u].
NOTE. Both forms appear – like resonants – in a complementary distribution, i.e. as CIC
and VJV, and never as ˟CJC or ˟VIV. Some authors make a distinction between consonantal
[j], [w], and vocalic [i], [u]; see Schmitt-Brandt (Die Entwicklung des Indogermanischen
Vokalsystems, 1967), Szemerényi (1985), or Mayrhofer (“Lautlehre (Segmentale Phonologie
des Indogermanischen)”, in Indogermanische Grammatik I, Cogwill-Mayrhofer 1986).
When they are pronounced lento, they give the allophones (or allosyllables) ij,
uw. Examples of alternating forms in PIE include médhijos (cf. Lat. medius), and
medhjos (cf. O.Ind. mádhjas or Gk. μέσσος); dwōu, two (cf. Goth. twai, Gk. δω-),
and duwōu (cf. O.Ind. duva, Gk. dúō < dúwō, Lat. duo).
NOTE. The so-called Sievers’ Law was behind most of these forms; it explains that the
weight of a syllable in LIE affected the pronunciation of following consonant clusters
consisting of a consonant plus a glide before a vowel (e.g. -tjo-, -two-): if the syllable before
the cluster was heavy (i.e. if it ended in -VCC or - V̄C), the vocalic equivalent of the glide was
inserted into the cluster (yielding -tijo-, -tuwo-). One of the conditions is that the rule only
applied when the glide began the final syllable of the word.
It is the same rule as Lindeman’s Law, whereby monosyllables beginning with consonant
plus glide (like kwōn, dog, or djēus, sky) had the cluster broken up in the same way as
Sievers’ Law (kuwṓn, dijḗus) if the word followed a word ending in a heavy syllable.
Descendants of both alternating forms might be preserved in the same dialect, or be found
in different different dialects. Lindeman’s Law can be interpreted as the sandhi equivalent to
Sievers’ Law; the variant dijḗus is determined by the final position of the preceding word:
on one hand we have ##...V̄#dijḗus ## and ##...VR#dijḗus##, on the other
##...C#djēus##. See Fortson (2004) and Meier-Brügger (2003).

2.4. PROSODY
2.4.1. The Indo-European verse is quantitative: it is based, that is to say (as in
Latin, Greek or Sanskrit), on a regular arrangement of long and short syllables and
not, as in English, of stressed and unstressed syllables.
Syllables are distinguished according to the length of time required for their
pronunciation. Two degrees of quantity are recognised, long and short.

139
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

NOTE. To distinguish long and short syllables more clearly from long and short vowels the
former may be referred to as heavy and light respectively (corresponding to the Sanskrit
terms guru and laghu, IE crāwú and leghú, respectively).
In syllables, quantity is measured from the beginning of the vowel or diphthong to the end
of the syllable. Such distinctions of long and short are not arbitrary and artificial, but are
purely natural, a long syllable requiring more time for its pronunciation than a short one.
2.4.2. A syllable is long or heavy usually,
a. if it contains a long vowel; as, mā-tḗr, mother, kē-lā-jō, hide,
b. if it contains a diphthong; as, lai-wós, left, oi-nos, one,
c. if it is followed by two or more consonants (even in another word); as,
dherghs, shit, korm-nos, bleach.
2.4.3. A syllable is short or light usually if it contains a short vowel (or vocalic
resonant) followed by a vowel or by a single consonant; as, dre-pō, cut, or e-í-mi,
go; or qṛ-mis, worm, cṃ-tis, march.
NOTE. In old compositions, sometimes final short vowels are found as heavy syllables; as,
Skt. deví etu, or vocat. vṛki, tanu, cf. Lindeman (1987) or Beekes (“On laryngeals and
pronouns”, KZ96, 1982). They are possibly glottal stops, remains of the old merged LIE
laryngeal *H, i.e. *dewíH, *wr̥kiH, etc. “The Rig Veda preserves many words that must scan
as though a laryngeal or some remnant of a laryngeal (like a glottal stop) were still present
between vowels, a phenomenon called laryngeal hiatus”. For example, Skt. vtas ‘wind’
must sometimes scan trisyllabically as va’atas, which comes from earlier pre-PII *weHn̥tos
or PII wáʔatas < PIE *h2weh1n̥tos → NWIE wentos; although for Ringe (2006) from Lat.
ventus, Welsh gwynt, PGmc. *windaz, only NWIE wentós or wēntos (cf. Proto-Toch.
*wyentë) could be reconstructed.

2.5. ACCENT
2.5.1. There are accented as well as unaccented words. The last could indicate
words that are always enclitic, i.e., they are always bound to the accent of the
preceding word, as -qe, and, -w, or; while another can be proclitics, like
prepositions.
2.5.2. Evidence from Ancient Greek, Vedic Sanskrit and Balto-Slavic accent let us
reconstruct a LIE pitch (also tonic or musical) accent system, with only one, acute
accent. Late Indo-European was therefore a stress language in which syllable
strength was chiefly a matter of pitch differences: the accented syllable was higher
in pitch than the surrounding syllables.

140
 2. Phonology

NOTE 1. For Beekes (1995): “There are several indications that Proto-Indo-European was
a tone language at some time in its development. The accent-systems of both Sanskrit and
Greek already give reason enough to surmise that this may have been the case.”
According to Clackson (2007): “Qualitatively our best evidence for PIE accent comes from
two of the oldest and most conservative branches: Greek and Vedic Sanskrit. For both
languages there is a large body of texts with word-accents marked and adequate
metalinguistic descriptions of the nature of the accentual system. The accent of both Greek
and Sanskrit was a mobile pitch-accent type, but there were differences between the two
systems (…) Since the two morae of some of the Greek circumflex nuclei have arisen from
contraction of two syllables, it seems reasonable to assume that the syllable-based accent of
Sanskrit is original (…).”
We can therefore assume that the attested distinction between acute and circumflex accent
in Ancient Greek and Baltic languages does not come from the LIE period, but were late
independent dialectal developments. According to this description of events, the Greek and
Indic systems were lost: Modern Greek has a pitch produced stress accent, and it was lost
entirely from Indic by the time of the Prākrits. Balto-Slavic retained LIE pitch accent,
reworking it into the opposition of ‘acute’ (rising) and ‘circumflex’ (falling) tone, and which,
following a period of extensive accentual innovations, yielded pitch-accent based system that
has been retained in modern-day Lithuanian and West South Slavic dialects. Some other
modern Indo-European languages have pitch accent systems; as, Swedish and Norwegian,
deriving from a stress-based system they inherited from Old Norse, and Punjabi, which
developed tone distinctions that maintained lexical distinctions as consonants were
conflated.
NOTE 2. A possibility is that PIE (or, more exactly, PIH) was a tonal language, i.e. that it
had more than the limited word-tone system usually called pitch-accent. This position was
argued by Szemerényi (1985), Lubotsky (The system of nominal accentuation in Sanskrit
and Proto-Indo-European, 1988) and by Kortlandt (“The laryngeal theory and Slavic
accentuation” in Bammesberger (ed.), 1988). They are mainly based on Sanskrit accentual
system and typological considerations, since such a system would account for the old
ablauting patterns found in PIE.
2.5.3. The accent is free, but that does not mean anarchy. On the contrary, it means
that each non-clitic word has an accent and only one accent, and one has to know –
usually by way of practice – where it goes. Its location usually depends on the
inflectional type to which a given word belongs.
NOTE. The term free here refers to the position of the accent—its position is (at least partly)
unpredictable by phonological rules, i.e. it could stand on any syllable of a word, regardless
of its structure. Otherwise homophonous words may differ only by the position of the accent,
and it is thus possible to use accent as a grammatical device.
2.5.4. The place of the original accent is difficult to reconstruct, and sometimes
different positions are attested. According to Clackson (2007), comparison of

141
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

Germanic, Baltic, Slavic, Greek and Sanskrit allows us to reconstruct the place of the
PIE word accent with confidence, what let us deduce some properties of the
accentual system:
a) The accent can fall on any element which functions as a syllabic nucleus.
b) The accent can fall on any syllable of a word.
c) No word has more than one accent.
2.5.5. According to Ringe (2006), thematic nominal (i.e. those ending in the
thematic vowel) had the accent on the same syllable throughout the paradigm;
thematic verb stems also have generally a fixed accent.
Some athematic verb stems and nominal have fixed accent (mostly on the root),
but most had alternating accent; there were different patterns, but in all of them the
surface accent was to the left in one group of forms (the nominative and accusative
cases of nominal, the active singular of verbs) and to the right in the rest.
Stems and endings can be underlyingly accented or not, and words with no
underlying accent are assigned accent on the leftmost syllable by default.
NOTE. According to Lehmann (1974): “The location of the high pitch is determined
primarily from our evidence in Vedic; the theory that this was inherited from PIE received
important corroboration from Karl Verner’s demonstration of its maintenance into
Germanic (1875). Thus the often cited correlation between the position of the accent in the
Vedic perfect and the differing consonants in Germanic provided decisive evidence for
reconstruction of the PIE pitch accent as well as for Verner’s law, as in the perfect (preterite)
forms of the root *deyk-, ‘show’.”

IE Vedic O.E. O.H.G.

1 sg. dedóika didéśa tāh zēh
1 pl. dedikmé didiśimá tigon zigum

Feminine nouns in a tend to be stressed on the root, while abstracts tend to be

accented on the ending, although there are many exceptions.
NOTE. Probert’s article in <http://www.ling-phil.ox.ac.uk/files/uploads/OWP2006.pdf>
discusses this question, and is probably the best reference for feminine accent. In most
reconstructions we follow the most obvious rule in case of doubt, though, cf. Gk. poinḗ, OCS
cená; Gk. skia, air. chāyā́-. Nussbaum also discusses this matter, but without too much
detail, in his article about the Saussure effect (Lubotsky 1997).

142
 2. Phonology

2.6. VOWEL CHANGE

2.6.1. The vowel grade or ablaut is normally the alternation between full, zero or
lengthened grade vocalism. Proto-Indo-European had a regular ablaut sequence
that contrasted the five usual vowel sounds called thematic, i.e. e/ē/o/ō/∅. This
means that in different forms of the same word, or in different but related words,
the basic vowel, a short e, could be replaced by a long ē, a short o or a long ō, or it
could be omitted (transcribed as ∅).
NOTE. The term Ablaut comes from Ger. Abstufung der Laute, ‘vowel alternation’. In
Romance languages, the term apophony is preferred.

In Romance languages, theme is used instead of stem. Therefore, theme vowel and
thematic refer to the stem endings. In the Indo-European languages, a common conventional
nomenclature is that thematic stems are those stems that have the common “theme vowel”,
i.e. the e/o ending. Athematic stems lack that theme vowel, and attach their inflections
directly to the stem itself.

2.6.2. When a syllable had a short e, it is said to be in the e grade; when it had no
vowel, it is said to be in the zero grade, when in o, in o grade, and they can also be
lengthened. The e-grade is sometimes called full grade.
NOTE. While changes in the length of a vowel (as e-∅-ē, o-∅-ō) are usually termed
quantitative ablaut, changes in the quality of a vowel (as e-o or ē-ō), are termed qualitative
ablaut. Because qualitative changes are more frequent than lengthened-grades, these forms
are usually termed e-grade or o-grade for convenience (Fortson 2004).

A classic example of the five grades of ablaut in a single root is provided by the
following different case forms of IE patḗr, father, and ṇpatōr, fatherless.

Ablaut grade IE Greek (translit.) Case

e-grade or full grade pa-ter-ṃ πα-τέρ-α pa-tér-a Accusative
lengthened e-grade pa-tḗr πα-τήρ pa-tḗr Nominative
zero-grade pa-tr-ós πα-τρ-ός pa-tr-ós Genitive
o-grade ṇ-pá-tor-ṃ ἀ-πά-τορ-α a-pá-tor-a Accusative
lengthened o-grade ṇ-pa-tōr ἀ-πά-τωρ a-pá-tōr Nominative

NOTE. Another example of the common Ablaut is t-stem nepot-, grandson, which gives
lengthened grade Nominative, nep-ōts, full-grade Genitive nép-ot-os, and zero-grade
feminine nep-t-is, grand-daughter. The study of declensions and practice with vocabulary
should help the reader learn such alternations.

143
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

2.6.3. Synoptic table of common examples of different vowel grades (adapted from
Adrados–Bernabé–Mendoza 1995-1998):

Vowel Grade Full (F) Zero (∅) Lengthened (L)

e/o - ∅ - ē/ō dom- dm- dōm-
je/jo - i - jē/jō djeu- diw- djēu-
we/wo - u - wē/wō kwon- kun- kwōn
ei/oi/ai - u/i - bheid- bhid- bhēid-
eu/ou/au - u/i - bheud- bhud- bhēud-
au/ai - u/i - āu/āi pau- pu- pāu-
ā/ē/ō - a - ā/ē/ō stā- sta- stā-
ēi/ōi - ū/ī - ēi/ōi pōi pī pōi
2.6.4. There are also some other possible vowel grade changes, as a-grade, i-grade
and u-grade, which usually come from old root endings, rather than from
systematised phonetic changes.
NOTE. It seems that the alternation full-grade/zero-grade in PIE was dependent on the
accent. Compare klewos/klutós, eimi/imés, patérṃ/patrós, etc., where the unstressed
morpheme loses its vowel. This happens only in the oldest formations, though, as Late Indo-
European had probably lost this morphological pattern, freezing many older ablauting words
and creating a new (more stable) vocabulary without changes in accent or vowel grade.

2.6.5. As we have seen, vowel change was common in Proto-Indo-European. In

many words the vowel varies because of old ablauting forms that gave different
derivatives.
So for example in o-grade domos, house, which gives dómūnos, lord, as Lat.
dominus, Skt. dámūnas; but full grade root dem-, which gives demspóts,
master, lord (from older gen. *dems) as Gk. δεσπότης (despótēs), Skt. dampati, Av.
dəṇg patōiš, (with fem. demspotnja).
NOTE. The forms attested in Indo-Iranian (and maybe Greek) come from i-stem potis,
probably derived from the original Late PIE form dems-póts, cf. ghósti-pots, guest, as
Lat. hospēs, hospitis, O.Russ. gospodь<*-ostьpot-; compare, for an original PIE ending -t in
compounds, Lat. sacerdōs < *sakro-dhots, O.Ind. devastút-, “who praises the gods”, etc. The
compound is formed with pot-, lord, husband, and pot-nja, mistress, lady.
2.6.6. Different vocalisations appeared in IE dialects in some phonetic
environments, especially between two occlusives in zero-grade; as e.g. skp-, which
evolved as Lat. scabo or Got. skaban.

144
 2. Phonology

NOTE. According to Fortson (2004): “In word-initial consonant clusters consisting of two
stops plus a resonant, a prop vowel was introduced between the two stops to break up the
cluster; this vowel was introduced between the two stops to break up the cluster; this vowel
is called “schwa secundum” (…) . For example, one of the forms of numeral ‘four’ was
*kwtu̯or-, which developed a schwa secundum to become *kwetu̯or- or *kwətu̯or-, yielding Lat.
quattuor and Homeric Gk. písures (as opposed to Gk. téssares from a different form,
*kwetu̯or-).”
Although the dialectal solutions to such consonantal groups aren’t unitary, we can find
some general PIE timbres. A general a; an i with a following dental (especially in Gk. and
BSl.); or u, also considered general, but probably influenced by the context, possibly when
in contact with a labial, guttural or labiovelar. Adrados–Bernabé–Mendoza (1995-1998).
2.6.7. Sometimes different reconstructions might account for some vowel
differences, most frequently in combinations of *RH or *HR; as, *lawō for lowō,
wash, *Sṃos for Samos, summer, *kṛwos for kerwos, deer, etc.
NOTE. Different reconstructions might be equally valid, depending on the criteria
employed. Sometimes different PIE language stages have to be taken into account; as, for
root neqt-, night, a common PIH *noqts is reconstructible, which had a genitive in *neqts
according to Hitt. nekut; however, pre-LIE shows a generalised non-ablauting pattern; cf.
O.Gk. nuks, nuktós, O.Lat. nox, noctis. The newer i-stem noqtis was the general post-LIE
(and later also PII, NWIE) form, without accent-ablaut changes; cf. O.Ind. nakti, Gmc. naxti,
Sla. notjь, Bal. nakti. See below §4.7 for a discussion on the reconstruction of root nouns.

2.7. CONSONANT CHANGE

2.7.1. Regarding consonant change, different similar reconstructions might
appear, too. Some might not fit into a single LIE original word; as, ghortos, garden
(cf. Gk. khortos, Lat. hortus, O.Ir. gort), and ghordhos, enclosure (cf. Gk. khortis,
Lith. gardas, O.C.S. gradu, Goth. gards, Phry. -gordum, Alb. garth).
NOTE. They have been explained as one original form borrowed with a (dialectal)
consonant change into other dialects, but it is more likely that both forms were found in LIE.
2.7.2. The so called s-mobile refers to the phenomenon of alternating word pairs,
with and without s before initial consonants, in roots with similar or identical
meaning. This ‘moveable’ prefix s- is always followed by another consonant. Typical
combinations are with voiceless stops (s)p-, (s)t-, (s)k-, with liquids and nasals,
(s)l-, (s)m-, (s)n-; and rarely (s)w-.
NOTE. Examples include (s)ten-, cf. with s- O.Ind. stánati, Gk. sténō, O.Eng. stenan, Lith.
stenù, O.Sla. stenjo, and without s- in O.Ind. tányati, Gk. Eol. ténnei, Lat. tonare, O.H.G.
donar, Cel. Tanaros (name of a river). For (s)pek-, cf. O.Ind. spáśati, Av. spašta, Gk. skopós
(<spokós), Lat. spektus, O.H.G. spehon, without s- in O.Ind. páśyati, Alb. pashë. For (s)ker-
, cf. O.Ind. ava-, apa-skara-, Gk. skéraphos, O.Ir. scar(a)im, O.N. skera, Lith. skiriù, Illyr.

145
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

Scardus, Alb. hurdhë (<*skṛd-), without s- in O.Ind. kṛnáti, Av. kərəntaiti, Gk. keíro, Arm.
kcorem, Alb. kjëth, Lat. caro, O.Ir. cert, O.N. horund, Lith. kkarnà, O.Sla. korŭcŭ, Hitt.
kartai-, and so on. Such pairs with and without s are found even within the same branch, as
Gk. (s)tégos, ‘roof’, (s)mikrós, ‘little’, O.Ind. (s)tṛ, ‘star’, and so on.
NOTE. Some scholars posit that it was a prefix in PIE (which would have had a causative
value), while others maintain that it is probably caused by assimilations of similar stems –
some of them beginning with an s-, and some of them without it. It is possible, however, that
the original stem actually had an initial s, and that it was lost by analogy in some situations,
because of phonetic changes, probably due to some word compounds where the last -s of the
first word assimilated to the first s- of the second one. That helps to explain why both stems
(with and without s) are recorded in some languages, and why no regular evolution pattern
may be ascertained: so for example in wḷqons spekjont, they saw wolves, becoming
wḷqons ‘pekjont. Adrados–Bernabé–Mendoza (1995-1998).
2.7.3. In a cluster of two consonants differing in voicing, the voicing of the first is
assimilated to that of the second.
Voiceless s was assimilated to voiced z before a voiced consonant; as, nisdos [‘niz-
dos], nest, misdhom [‘miz-dhom], meed, salary, or osdos [‘oz-dos], branch.
Voiced stops become voiceless when followed by a voiceless consonant: e.g. agtós
[ak-‘tos] (cf. Gk. ακτος (aktos), Lat. actus). The same happens with voiced aspirates,
as in leghtrom, support (cf. Gk. lektron, O.H.G. Lehter or from the same root Lat.
lectus); or nictós, washed (cf. Gk. a-niptos <*n̥-niqtos, ‘unwashed’, O.Ir. necht).
Voiceless stops become voiced before voiced consonants; as, ped- in zero-grade -
pd-, cf. Gk. επιβδα (epi-bd-a), Av. frabda, ‘forefoot’.
Voiced and voiceless stops are pronounced alike in final position; as, qid [kwit] (cf.
O.Ind. cit), or pod, foot (cf. voiceless O.Ind. nom. pāt, after having lost the final -s).
NOTE. Although the accuracy of some allophones in Late Indo-European is certain, for
practical reasons the phonetically correct notation is therefore avoided in favour of the
phonemically correct notation. We deem that to write them as a general rule, like writing
‘thə’ or ‘thi’ for English the, or ‘dogz’ for dogs, while possibly helpful to show the actual
pronunciation, would probably be an obstacle to the understanding of the underlying
etymology; also, such phonetical variations exist naturally, and don’t need to be supported
by the orthography.
2.7.4. A sequence of two dentals -TT- (such as -tt-, -dt-, -tdh-, -ddh-, etc.) was
eliminated in all Indo-European dialects, but the process of this suppression
differed among branches: Vedic Sanskrit shows little change, some others an
intermediate -sT- (Iranian, Greek, Balto-Slavic) and others -ss- or -s- (Italic, Celtic,
Germanic). Compounds were not affected by this trend; as, kréd-dhēmi, believe.

146
 2. Phonology

We find a common intermediate stage in Iranian, Proto-Greek (cf. Gk. st, sth, in
pistis, oistha), and North-West Indo-European (cf. *Hed-ti ‘eats’, in Lat. est, Lith.
esti, OCS jastŭ, and afield O.H.G. examples). Therefore, we can assume that PIE
*d+t, *t+t, *dh+t → NWIE, PGk st; PIE *d+d, *t+d, *dh+d → NWIE, PGk sd; PIE
*d+dh, *t+dh, *dh+dh → NWIE, PGk sdh.
Common examples are found in forms derived from PIE root weid-, know, see,
which gave verb widējō, cf. Lat. vidēre, Goth. witan, O.C.S. viděti, Lith. pavydéti;
p.p. wistós, seen, from wid-tó-, cf. O.Ind. vitta-, but Av. vista-, O.Pruss. waist,
O.Sla. veš tъ, or Ger. ge-wiss, Lat. vīsus, O.Gk. ϝιστος (wistos), O.Ir. rofess, etc.;
noun wistis, sight, vision, from wid-ti-, cf. Goth wizzi, Lat. vīsiō; Greek wistōr,
wise, learned man, from wid-tor, cf. Gk. ἵστωρ (hístōr)<*ϝίστωρ (wístōr), PGk
wistorjā, history, from Gk. ἱστορία (historía); Imp. wisdhi! know!, from wid-
dhi, cf. O.Ind. viddhí, O.Gk. ϝίσθι (wísthi), O.Lith. veizdi, and so on.
NOTE. An older PIE *TT → *TsT has been proposed, i.e. that the cluster of two dental stops
had a dental fricative s inserted between them (giving *-tst- and *-dzd-). It is based on some
findings in Hittite, where cluster tst is spelled as z (pronounced ts), as in PIH *h1ed-te, ‘eat!’
→ *h1ette → *h1etste → Old Hitt. ēzten (pronounced étsten), or Ved. Skt. attá (interpreted as
from *atstá, where *s is lost). Cf. also for Indo-Iranian imperative *da-d-dhí ‘give!’ in L.Av.
dazdi, O.Ind. dehí<dazdhi<*dadzdhi (Mayrhofer Lautlehre 1986), instead of the expected
O.Ind. *daddhi. However, confirmation from a common LIE *-st- is found in Indo-Iranian
too (which might be interpreted as previous *TsT where the initial *T is lost); as, O.Ind.
mastis, “measure”, from *med-tis, or Av. -hasta-, from *sed-tós. This LIE evolution TT (→
TsT)? → sT was overshadowed by dialectal developments, v.s. §1.7.2.III.
2.7.5. It seems that simplification of geminated PIE *-ss- occurred already in LIE,
as Greek and Indo-Iranian dialects show. However, in this book the written
gemination is considered the most conservative approach. Only the attested
simplification of gemination is reconstructed; as, esi for es-si, you are.
NOTE. So, from *essi we have O.Ind. ási, Av. ahi, Gk. εἶ <*esi (Hom. and Dor. ἐσσί are
obviously analogic forms), etc. That form from es- is reconstructed e.g. by Adrados–
Bernabé–Mendoza (1995-1998), Fortson (2004), Cardona (2004), Ringe (2006), among
others. It is therefore to be pronounced with a simple /-s-/, and written accordingly -s-.
This is not the only solution to gemination in PIE, though, as shown by e.g. Lat. amassō,
propriassit, with original IE gemination after Kortlandt. Therefore, the fact that *-ss- is
simplified into -s- in some attested words does not confirm that the simplification occurred
necessarily and always in LIE (or IED) times, because it could have occurred later, although
it shows a clear trend toward simplification.

147
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

2.7.6. Consonant clusters *KsK were simplified by loss of the first stop; as, present
stem of prek-, ask, pṛk-skṓ- [pr̥-‘sk] (cf. Lat. poscit, Skt. pr̥ccháti).
2.7.7. Word-final -n was often lost after ō; as, kwō(n), dog (cf. O.Ir. cú); or
dhghomō(n), man (cf. Lat. homō); this loss was not generalised, although it seems
that it was already common in Late Indo-European.
NOTE. Fortson (2004): PIE forms where the *-n disappeared, like the word for ‘dog’ above,
are written by Indo-Europeanists variously with or without the n, or with n in parentheses:”
kwōn or kwō or kwō(n). We prefer to write them always with -n by convention.

148
 3. WORDS AND THEIR FORMS
3.1. THE PARTS OF SPEECH
3.1.1. Words are divided into eight parts of speech: nouns, adjectives (including
participles), pronouns, verbs, adverbs, prepositions, conjunctions, and
interjections.
3.1.2. A noun is the name of a person, place, thing or idea; as, Klewopatrā,
Cleopatra, dānus, river, dhworis, door, wṛdhom, word.
Names of particular persons and places are called proper nouns; other nouns are
called common.
NOTE. An abstract noun is the name of a quality or idea. A collective noun is the name of
a group or a class.
3.1.3. An adjective is a word that attributes a quality; as, patrjóm, parental,
leukós, bright, kartús, hard, grṇdhís, grown.
NOTE 1. A participle is a word that attributes quality like an adjective, but, being derived
from a verb, retains in some degree the power of the verb to assert.
NOTE 2. Etymologically there is no difference between a noun and an adjective, both being
formed alike. So, too, all nouns originally attribute quality, and any common noun can still
be so used. Thus, Aleksanṓr Regs, King Alexander, distinguishes this Alexander from
other Alexanders, by the attribute expressed in the noun regs, king. See §10.9 for names of
persons, and §10.4.4 for apposition of titles.
3.1.4. A pronoun is a word used to distinguish a person, place, thing or idea without
either naming or describing it: as, egṓ, I, twos, thine, wejes, we.
Nouns and pronouns are often called substantives.
3.1.5. A verb is a word capable of asserting something: as, bherō, I carry, bear.
NOTE. In English the verb is usually the only word that asserts anything, and a verb is
therefore supposed to be necessary to complete an assertion. Strictly, however, any adjective
or noun may, by attributing a quality or giving a name, make a complete assertion, see below
§10 Syntax.
3.1.6. An adverb is a word used to express the time, place, or manner of an
assertion or attribute: as, peri, in front, epi, near, antí, opposite.
NOTE. These same functions are often performed in Indo-European by cases of nouns,
pronouns and adjectives, and by phrases or sentences.
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

3.1.7. A preposition is a word which shows the relation between a noun or pronoun
and some other word or words in the same sentence; as, e.g., ad, at, to, dē, from
upwards, kom, with, ek(sí), outside, upo, under, and so on.
3.1.8. A conjunction is a word which connects words, or groups of words, without
affecting their grammatical relations: as, -qe, and, -w, or, -ma, but, -r, for.
3.1.9. Interjections are mere exclamations and are not strictly to be classed as parts
of speech; as, alā! hello!, ō O (vocative), wai, alas (grief), ha ha! (laughing sound);
ha! (surprise); etc.
NOTE. Interjections sometimes express an emotion which affects a person or thing
mentioned, and so have a grammatical connection like other words.

3.2. INFLECTION
3.2.1. Indo-European is an inflected language. Inflection is a change made in the
form of a word to show its grammatical relations.
NOTE. Some modern Indo-European languages, like most Germanic and Romance
dialects, have lost partly or completely their earliest attested inflection systems – due to
different simplification trends –, in nominal declension as well as in verbal conjugation.
3.2.2. Inflectional changes sometimes take place in the body of a word, or at the
beginning, but oftener in its termination:
pods, the or a foot, pedós, of the foot; eimi, I go, imés, we go.
3.2.3. Terminations of inflection had possibly originally independent meanings
which are now obscured. They probably corresponded nearly to the use of
prepositions, auxiliaries and personal pronouns in English.
Thus, in ghórdejos, of the barley (Gen.), the termination is equivalent to “of the”;
in deikō, I show (indicative), and deikom, I was showing, I used to show
(imperfect),.
3.2.4. Inflectional changes in the body of a verb usually denote relations of tense
or mood, and often correspond to the use of auxiliary verbs in English:
Present déikesi, thou show, aorist dikés, you showed; present (gí)gnṓsketi, he
knows, recognises, is able, perfect gnowa, I am able or ‘I am in the state of
knowing (having recognised)’; the change of vowel grade and accent signifies a
change in the aspect.
3.2.5. The inflection of nouns, adjectives, pronouns and participles to denote
gender, number and case is called declension, and these parts of speech are said to
be declined.

150
 3. Words and their Forms

The inflection of verbs to denote voice, mood, tense, number and person is called
conjugation, and the verb is said to be conjugated.
NOTE. Adjectives are often said to have inflections of comparison. These are, however,
properly stem-formations made by derivations.
3.2.6. Adverbs, prepositions, conjunctions and interjections are not inflected, and
together form the group of the so-called particles.

3.3. ROOT AND STEM

3.3.1. The body of a word, to which the terminations are attached, is called the
stem. The stem contains the idea of the word without relations; but, except in the
first part of compounds (e.g. somo-patōr, “of the same father”, sibling, mṇ-dōmi,
commit), it cannot ordinarily be used without some termination to express them.
Thus the stem pater- denotes father; patḗr, nominative, means a father or the
father, as the subject or agent of an action; patér (or pater) is the vocative, as in O
father!; patérṃ is the accusative and means to a father or to the father, as the
direct object; patrós is the genitive and indicates of a father or of the father, and
so on.
NOTE. In inflected languages like Indo-European, words are built up from roots, which at
a very early time were possibly used alone to express ideas. Roots are modified into stems,
which, by inflection, become fully formed words. The process by which roots are modified,
in the various forms of derivatives and compounds, is called stem-building. The whole of this
process is originally one of composition, by which significant endings are added one after
another to forms capable of pronunciation and conveying a meaning.
According to Mallory–Adams (2007): “To the root might be added a variety of suffixes to
create a stem and then finally the case endings depending on number and perhaps gender.
In some cases, the so-called root-nouns, there are no suffixes before the case ending. Using
R for ‘root’, S for ‘stem-creating suffix’, and E for ‘case-number-ending’, we might establish
the formula for an inflected word in Proto-Indo-European as R-(S)-E.”
3.3.2. A root is the simplest form attainable by analysis of a word into its
component parts. Such a form contains the main idea of the word in a very general
sense, and is common also to other words either in the same language or in kindred
languages; cf. for stā-, stand, reduplicated present sí-stā-mi, I stand, noun stā-
mṇ, place for standing, zero-grade p.p. sta-tós, placed, standing, or noun sta-tis,
erection, standing.
For example, the root of verb spekjō, look, is spek-, which does not necessarily
mean to look, or I look, or looking, but merely expresses vaguely the idea of looking,
and possibly cannot be used as a part of speech without terminations.

151
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

The roots of the reconstructed PIE language are basic morphemes carrying a
lexical meaning. By addition of suffixes, they form stems, and by addition of
desinences, they form grammatically inflected words (nouns or verbs).
NOTE. Clackson (2007): “The most influential theory of root-structure was put forward by
Benveniste, in a chapter of a book concerning nominal formations in IE languages
(Benveniste 1935). Benveniste used recent findings from work on the laryngeal theory (…) to
present a unified view of the PIE root, and his root theory closely follows earlier work by
Cuny and Kuryłowicz (see Szemerényi 1973). According to Benveniste, the basic structure of
all PIE roots was *CeC- (C = any consonant), i.e. monosyllabic, with initial and final
consonants” and with e as fundamental vowel; as, sed-, sit, bher-, carry.
Fortson (2004) offers a practical summary of complementary information to the theory:
o This template could be modified in certain ways, especially by adding consonants either
at the beginning or the end to form consonant clusters. Most commonly, a resonant
could occur on either side of the vowel, resulting in roots of the shape *CReC-, *CeRC-,
and *CReRC- (remember that both i and u can function as resonants). Examples of
them are dhwer-, door, derk-, see, or ghrendh, grind.
o Roots could also have any of the basic structures above preceded by s; as, spek-, see,
sneich-, snow. We have already talked about the s-mobile, v.s. §2.7.
o Certain classes of consonants rarely or never co-occur within a given PIE root.
According to Meillet, impossible PIE combinations are voiceless stop and voiced
aspirate (as in *tebh or *bhet), as well as two plain unaspirated voiced stops (as in *ged
or *bed). The *tebh type is commonly found if preceded by an *s-, though. The source
of these constraints is unknown, although similar constraints are known from other
language families.
o A few roots began with a cluster consisting of two stops; as, tkei-, settle, and pter,
wing, as well as those with word-initial ‘thorn’ clusters, as ṛtkos, bear, or dhghom-,
earth.
NOTE 2. For peculiarities of the PIH reconstruction, also from Forston (2004):
The bulk of roots with laryngeals fall into four types: *CeH-, *HeC-, *HReC and *CeRH. In
all these cases, the laryngeal was either the first or last consonant of the root. Some roots
contained a laryngeal before the final consonant.
Some roots had a rather than e as the original PIH vowel; as, nas-, nose, sal-, salt. For
reasons that are debated, initial k- is particularly common in this class of roots; as, kadh-,
protect, kamp-, bend, and kan-, sing.
3.3.3. The reconstructed PIE roots that appear with extra phonetic material (one
or two sounds) added on to them, without any discernible change to the meaning of
the root, are called extended roots (Fortson 2004).
NOTE. Clackson (2007) compares gheud-, pour (Lat. fundō, perf. fūdī, Goth. giutan), with
ghew-, pour (cf. Skt. juhóti, Gk. khéō, Toch B kewu): “The longer form *gheud- is easily

152
 3. Words and their Forms

taken to be composed of *ghew- followed by a ‘determinative’ *d. According to Benveniste,

every root with a structure more complex than *CeC- was an extended root (he used the term
thème to denote what we call here ‘extended root’). The root *yeug- can therefore be seen as
an extended form of a more basic *yew-, a hypothesis which is supported by the fact that
there is actually a root *yew- ‘join’ reconstructed from Sanskrit yuváti ‘ties’ and Lithuanian
jáuju ‘I mix’.”
3.3.4. Most of the reconstructed PIE lexicon is in the form of roots. However, there
are some words which apparently belong to a very ancient layer of IE vocabulary,
and cannot easily derived from roots; as, sāwōl, sun, dhughtēr, daughter, acnos,
lamb, wortokos, quail.

A few, like abel-, apple, and pélekus, ax, have a shape that seems un-Indo-
European, and are thought by some to be prehistoric borrowings from non-IE
languages. Fortson (2004).

3.3.4. The stem may be the same as the root; as, dō-, give, dakru, tear; but it is
more frequently formed from the root:

1. By changing or lengthening its vowel; as, from athematic root verb dā-, divide,
common derivative dai-mai, divide up, distribute.
NOTE. Formally, following Benveniste’s theory, the PIE root for the verb is reconstructed
as *deh2(j)-, i.e. from root *deh2-, and enlargement *-j-, see Rix (2001).
2. By the addition of a simple suffix; as, from root dā-, divide, derivative dā-mos,
people, people’s division (cf. Dor. Gk. δημος, O.Ir. dām, Hitt. da-ma-a-iš).

NOTE. Some suffixes probably conveyed an earlier underlying meaning, e.g. the suffix -
trom tends to indicate an instrument, as arā-trom, plough, from a verb arājō, plough,
while kinship names tend to have the suffix -er- or -ter-, cf. swes-ōr, sister, bhrā-tēr,
brother.
3. By two or more of these methods; from the same root, suffixed derivative dai-
tis, time, period, cf. Gmc. tīÞ, Arm ti, as well as Gk. δαιτύς, O.Ind. dātu-.

4. By derivation and composition, following the laws of development peculiar to

the language, which we will see in the corresponding chapters.

3.3.5. Inflectional terminations are modified differently by combination with the

final vowel or consonant of the stem, and the various forms of declension and
conjugation are so developed.

153
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

3.4. GENDER

3.4.1. The genders distinguished in Late Indo-European are three: masculine,

feminine (both are referred to as animate) and neuter or inanimate.

The masculine functions as the negative term in the opposition of animates; i.e.
when the gender is not defined when referring to animates, the masculine is used.
NOTE. This is a grammatical utility, one that is only relevant for concordance, and whose
development is probably related to the evolution of the language and its inflection. Therefore,
the feminine is the positive term of the opposition within the animates, because when we use
it we reduce the spectrum of animates to the feminine, while the masculine still serves as the
negative (i.e. non-differentiated) term for both animates – masculine and feminine – when
used in this sense, i.e. when not differentiating the gender.
Clackson (2007): “Masculine nouns in other IE languages appear as nouns of the common
gender in Hittite, but Hittite has no nominal declension corresponding to the feminine stems
in *-eh2 or *-ih2. The lack of a feminine gender in Hittite has led scholars to ask whether the
feminine ever existed in the Anatolian branch.”
According to Mallory–Adams (2007): “The fact that Proto-Indo-European also forms
collectives in *-h2- (e.g. the Hittite collective alpa, ‘group of clouds’ from a singular alpeš,
‘cloud’) has suggested that this was its original use and that it later developed the specifically
feminine meaning.”
3.4.2. The gender of Indo-European nouns is either natural or grammatical.

a. Natural gender is distinction as to the sex of the object denoted: bhrātēr (m.),
brother; cenā (f.), woman, wife.

b. Grammatical gender is a formal distinction as to sex where no actual sex exists

in the object. It is shown in the form of the adjective joined with the noun: as
swādús noqtis (f.), a pleasant night; mṛghú kanmṇ (n.), brief song. The gender
of the adjective is simply a gender of concordance: it indicates to which noun of a
concrete gender the adjective refers to.

NOTE 2. Names of classes or collections of persons may be of any gender. For example,
wolgos (masc.), (common) people, or teutā (fem.), people (of a nationality).
3.4.3. The neuter or inanimate gender differs from the other two in inflection, not
in the theme vowel. The gender of animates, on the contrary, is usually marked by
the theme vowel, and sometimes by declension, vocalism and accent.

154
 3. Words and their Forms

3.4.4. The neuter does not refer to the lack of sex, but to the lack of liveliness or
life. Sometimes, however, animates can be designated as inanimates and vice versa.

While the distinction between masculine and feminine is usually straightforward,

sometimes the attribution of sex is arbitrary; thus, different words for parts of the
body are found feminine, as nāsis, nose, kanmā, leg; masculine, as kolsos, neck,
armos, arm, upper arm; and neuter, as kaput, head, or genu, knee.

3.4.5. The animate nouns can have:

a. An oppositive gender, marked:
I. by the lexicon, as in patḗr/mātḗr, father/mother, bhrātēr/swesōr,
brother/sister, sūnús/dhugtēr, son/daughter;
II. by the stem ending, as in general ekwos/ekwā, horse/mare; or infrequent
wlqos/wlqīs, wolf/she-wolf, deiwos/deiwja, god/ goddess;
III. by both at the same time, as in swekros/swekrús, father-in-law-mother-
in-law, wīrós/cenā, man-woman, regs/regeinā, king-queen.
b. An autonomous gender, that does not oppose itself to others, as in nāus (f.),
ship, pods (m.), foot, egnis (m.), fire, owis (f.), sheep, jewos (n.) or legs (f.), law.
c. A common gender, in nouns that are masculine or feminine depending on the
context; as, cōus, cow or bull, deuks, leader, ghostis, foreigner.
d. An epicene gender, which, although being masculine or feminine, designates
both sexes; as, médodiks, doctor, nawāgós, sailor, nemots, enemy, setis,
visitor.
3.4.6. The gender of a noun can thus be marked by the stem vowel (or sometimes
by inflection), or has to be learnt: it is a feature of a word like any other. In its
context, concordance is a new gender mark; a masculine noun has a masculine
adjective, and a feminine noun a feminine adjective. However, not all adjectives
differentiate between masculine and feminine, a lot of them (those in -i-s, -u-s, -ēs,
-ōn, and some thematic in -os) are masculine and feminine: only the context, i.e.
the noun with which they agree, helps to disambiguate them. This happens also in
nouns with a common gender.
3.4.7. Most endings do not indicate gender, as in patḗr and mātḗr. Only by
knowing the roots in many cases, or from the context in others, is it possible to
determine it.

155
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

NOTE. Clackson (2007): “Nouns of all genders can occur in the athematic declension. Non-
neuter animate nouns are usually assigned gender through correspondence with the natural
sex of the referent, non-neuter inanimate nouns are assigned gender by convention.”
Some of the suffixes determine, though, totally or partially if they are masculine or
feminine. These are the following:
1. -os marks masculine when it is opposed to a feminine in -ā or -ī/-ja, as in
ekwos/ekwā, deiwos/deiwja, god/goddess, etc. This happens also in adjectives
in the same situation, as in newos/newā, or bheronts/bherontja, bearing.
In isolated nouns, -os is generally masculine, but some traces of the old
indistinctness of gender still remained in LIE, as in the names of trees (among
others). In adjectives, when the ending -os is not opposed to feminine, concordance
decides. A common example is snusós, daughter-in-law, a feminine from the o-
declension.
2. -ā marks the feminine in oppositions of nouns and adjectives. It is usually also
feminine in isolated nouns, in the first declension.
NOTE. There seems to be no reconstructible masculines in -ā; so e.g. BSl. *slough,
servant (cf. O.Sla. slŭga, Lith. slauga “service”, O.Ir. sluag, “army unit”) etc. is probably to
be reconstructed as original NWIE sloughos (cf. Ir. teg-lach < *tegoslougo-).
According to Clackson (2007): “(…) the only one of the three major declension classes to
show a restriction to a single gender is the class of feminine nouns formed with the suffix *-
eh2 or *-ih2. Where IE languages show masculine nouns in this declension class, such as Latin
agricola ‘farmer’ or Greek neānías ‘young man’, they can be explained as post-PIE
developments. The feminine is only therefore distinguished in one declension type, and it is
this same declension that is absent in Hittite. It appears that the category of feminine gender
is to be closely associated with the declension class in *-h2.”
3. Endings - <*-(e/o)h2, -ī/-ja <*-ih2, although generally feminine in LIE, show
remains of its old abstract-collective value, as neuter plural. It appears in nouns,
adjectives and pronouns

3.5. NUMBER
3.5.1. Nouns, pronouns, adjectives and participles, all are declined in Indo-
European in two numbers, singular and plural. The same is found in the PIE verbal
conjugations.
NOTE. The same categories of case are found in singular and plural, but with a greater
degree of syncretism in the latter, with common ablative-dative endings, and nominative-
vocative, see below. According to Meier-Brügger (2003): “Singular and plural are
grammatical categories that are common to the verb and the noun. They permit one to

156
 3. Words and their Forms

indicate by means of congruence the association of the noun with the subject of the action,
indicated by the verb form employed. The relationship of singular to plural is a question of
syntax.”
3.5.2. Late Indo-European shows also traces of a dual number for some nouns and
pronouns, but the formation of stable verbal dual forms is only traceable to
individual dialects.
NOTE. Clackson (2007): “The dual does not just denote that there are two of something: it
can also be used as an associative marker in a construction standardly referred to as the
elliptical dual in grammars and handbooks.” So e.g. Ved. Skt. dual Mitr refers to Mitra and
his companion Varuna; Hom. Gk. dual Aíante referred probably to Ajax and his brother
Teucer. In languages that do not show dual, however, the plural is used as an associative to
denote pairs in Latin Castorēs, the plural of the name ‘Castor’, is used to denote the semi-
god Castor and his twin Pollux.
Meier-Brügger (2003) reproduces the words of Matthias Fritz’s work on the dual: “The
origins of the dual are contained in two word types: On the one hand, the personal pronoun
is a starting point of the numerus dual; on the other, among nouns, terms for paired body
parts are of great importance. While pronouns in the first and second person feature the dual
as grammatical category as far back as they can be traced, the dual category initially does not
exist among substantives. In the case of the terms for paired body parts the duality is lexically
founded. (…) The formation of verbal dual forms based upon the first person personal
pronoun takes place where the formation was no longer completed in the Proto-Indo-
European period, which then does not take place in the language branches. Thus, the
secondary endings may be reconstructed. In the case of syntagmata, using the substantive as
a basis, a dual form and the number word for ‘two’ transferred the dual inflection over to the
numera, thus echoing the relation of syntagmata to pronouns and adjectives.”
Given the scarcity of remains found in West IE languages, it is likely that that LIE
did not have a fully developed system for the dual. Also, its use seems to have been
optional even in its most common use: body parts.
NOTE. Clackson (2007): “The dual is reconstructed for pronouns, animate nouns and
inanimate nouns, but it is likely that its usage was optional at least with words denoting
inanimates (that is, the lower end of the ‘animacy hierarchy’). Note that in the two early IE
languages with a paradigmatic dual, Greek and Sanskrit, pairs of body parts, such as hands,
eyes, legs, knees etc., may be denoted either by the plural or by the dual, and the plural is in
fact more common for bodypart terms in Homeric Greek.”
3.5.3. Verbs which are collocated with non-neuter plural forms of nouns must
agree with them in number; that is also the case for most neuter plural forms of
nouns.

157
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

However, the so-called collective neuter plural requires concordance in the

singular. Such forms are scarce, and found only in the nominative and accusative;
in the other cases, they follow the plural paradigm.
NOTE. Examples are given in Meier-Brügger (2003) and Clackson (2007) from Greek
kúklos ‘wheel, circle’ (kúkloi ‘circles’ vs. kúkla ‘set of wheels’), mērós ‘thigh’ (mē ̂ roí ‘thigh-
pieces’ vs. mēra ‘agglomeration of thigh-meat’), Hitt. alpas ‘cloud’ (alpes ‘clouds’ vs. alpa
‘cloud-mass’), or Lat. locus ‘place’ (locī ‘places’ vs. loca ‘places’).

158
 4. Nouns

4. NOUNS
4.1. DECLENSION OF NOUNS
4.1.1. Declension is made by adding terminations to different stem endings, vowel
or consonant.
Adjectives are generally declined like nouns, and are etymologically to be classed
with them, but they have some peculiarities of inflection which will be later
explained.
4.1.2. There are eight commonly reconstructed cases for Late Indo-European:
I. The nominative is the case of the subject of a sentence and predicate nominative.

II. The vocative is the case of direct address.

III. The accusative is the case of the direct object of a verb. It is used also with
many prepositions.

IV. The genitive may generally be translated by the English possessive.

V. The ablative, the source or place from which.

VI. The dative, the case of the indirect object. It also indicates possession, and
beneficiary of an action.
VII. The locative, the place where.
VIII. The instrumental, the means and the agent.
NOTE. The oblique cases appear in the English pronoun set; these pronouns are often
called objective pronouns; as in she loves me (accusative), give it to me (dative) or that dirt
wasn’t wiped with me (instrumental), where me is not inflected differently in any of these
uses; it is used for all grammatical relationships except the genitive case of possession, mine,
and a non-disjunctive nominative case as the subject, I.
4.1.3. Nouns and adjectives are inflected in LIE in four regular declensions,
distinguished by their final phonemes – characteristic of the stem –, and by the
opposition of different forms in irregular nouns. They are numbered following
Graeco-Roman tradition: first or a-stem declension, second or o-stem declension,
third or i/u-stem declension, fourth or c-stem declension, and the variable nouns.

The stem of a noun may be found, if a consonant stem, by omitting the case-
ending; if a vowel stem, by substituting for the case-ending the characteristic vowel.

159
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

Decl. Stem ending Nominative Genitive

1. ā (ja/ī, ē, ō) -∅ -s
2. e/o (Thematic) m., f.-s, n.-m -os/-osjo
3. i, u and Diphthong m., f.-s, n.-∅ -eis, -eus; -jos, -
4. Resonants & -s, -∅ -es/-os
(5) Heteroclites -∅, -r -(e)n

NOTE. Most Indo-Europeanists tend to distinguish at least two major types of declension
for the oldest PIE, thematic and athematic. Thematic nominal stems are formed with a suffix
-o- (also -e-), and the stem does not undergo ablaut, i.e. there is no ablaut difference between
the strong and the weak cases, and there is no accent change, see below.
Feminine stems in -ā < *-eh2 were originally c-stems with final *-h2 which, under pressure
from the o-stem adjectives, were adapted to the thematic paradigm of the masculine o-stems.
It is sometimes separated from the athematic declension into a new class, even if being
originally consonantal, because of such peculiarities; so e.g. in Clackson (2007): “In respect
of the reconstructed case-endings, the class of feminine nouns in [a-stem declension] shows
clear affinities with the athematic class [c-stem declension], and the o-stem declension
diverges more radically from both. In the daughter languages, however, there is a general
tendency for the o-stem class and the feminine ā-stems to become more closely associated,
almost certainly through the combination of the two classes in a number of pronominal and
adjectival declensions as masculine and feminine alternatives.”
The declension of i/u-stems and c-stems is more complex, as it involves accent-
ablaut changes. Fortunately the most productive (thus more frequent) declensions
in LIE are mainly o-stems and ā-stems.
NOTE. Stems in consonant, i, and u, are more archaic, and they are classified further by
their ablaut behaviour into different so-called dynamic patterns, after the positioning of the
early PIE accent in the paradigm. See below §4.7.
The distinction of i-stems and u-stems from c-stems is also traditional, but according to
Fortson (2004), to keep that distinction for PIH probably “is both unnecessary and
misleading, as it masks the fundamentally identical behavior of both groups over against that
of the thematic nouns”. In LIE, however, there are pragmatic reasons to distinguish them.
4.1.3. The following are general rules of declension:
a. The nominative singular for animates ends in -s when the stem endings are i, u,
diphthong, occlusive and thematic (-os); in -∅ when the stem ends in ā, resonant
and s; in the plural -es is general, -s for those in ā, and -os for the thematic ones.
NOTE. For collectives/feminines in -ja/-ī <*-jə<*-ih2 we prefer to use in our texts the
ending -ja for feminines, and -ī for neuters as a general rule. It is not intended as a
‘normative’ selection, though, but as a conventional simplification of the otherwise tedious

160
 4. Nouns

repetition -ja/-ī that is followed in other books, while at the same time reflecting the natural
evolution pattern of such forms in NWIE (see below §§4.2, 4.4.2). So e.g. this convention
does not limit the use of feminines in -ī; as e.g. Lat. -trīx, or coxendīx.
b. The accusative singular of all masculines and feminines ends in -m or -ṃ (after
consonant), the accusative plural in -ns or -ṇs.
NOTE. A general accusative plural ending -ns (-ṇs after consonant) is usually
reconstructed for Late Indo-European, because e.g. within the u-stem from PIE *-u-ns, early
IE languages show *-uns, *-ūns, *-ūs; cf. Goth. sununs, O.Ind. sūnū́n, Gk. uíuns, Lith. sū́nus,
O.C.S. syny, Lat. manūs. See H. Rix (FS Risch 1986). Most scholars also posit an ‘original’,
older **-ms form (a logical accusative singular -m- plus the plural mark -s), but they usually
prefer to reconstruct the attested *-ns, thus implicitly suggesting either the theoretical origin
of the ending, or a previous PIH *-ms → LIE *-ns. For a PIH *-ms, cf. maybe Hitt. -uš
(Ottinger 1979), but Lyc -s (<*-ns?). To be consistent with decisions taken elsewhere in this
grammar (as e.g. reconstructed PIE *-T(s)T- as NWIE intermediate -sT-, see §2.7), the
intermediate, attested -ns is the conservative choice, whereas **-ms is just a probable
hypothesis about its actual origin.

c. The vocative singular for animates is always -∅, and in the plural it is identical
to the nominative.
d. The genitive singular is common to animates and inanimates, it is formed with
-s: -s, -es, -os. An alternative possibility is extended -os-jo. The genitive plural is
formed in -ōm, and in -ām in a-stems.
NOTE. Case endings in -e/o-, -ē/ō-, are generally written in this book in -o-, -ō-, in
inflected nouns, given the alternating nature of these forms even within the same dialectal
branches, and the unknown nature of the original ablauting forms. Sihler (1995), Fortson
(2004), Ringe (2006), reconstruct ‘original’ forms in -es, while Beekes (1995) deems -(o)s
the oldest athematic declension. Meier-Brügger (2003) or Adrados–Bernabé–Mendoza
reconstruct both as alternating -es/-os. For Sihler (1995), since e-grade is typical of
consonant stems, maybe forms in -o- in o-stems were the ‘original’ ones, and those in -e-
were secondary creations; that same argument is found for the genitive of athematic nouns
in -es, supposedly substituted by the ‘original’ thematic -os (Fortson 2004). In any case, it
seems that in Late Indo-European forms in -o- prevailed, as did the thematic declension; as,
kunós, over kunés, from kwōn.
e. The obliques singular end usually in -i: it can be -i-, -ei-, -ēi-, -oi-, -ōi- or -āi-,
and their extensions. In the plural, there are two series of declensions, instr. -bhis/-
mis (from sg. -bhi), dat.-abl. -bhos/-mos (PII -bhjas) as well as (BSl. and PII)
loc. in -su (PGk. -si).
NOTE. Comparison shows an ins. sg. -bhi, (cf. Gk. -phi, Myc. -pi, and also Arm. ins. marb),
BSl. -mi (cf. Lith. akmenimì, O.C.S. kamenĭmĭ) and for Northwestern IE dialects a division

161
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

between Italic+Celtic and Germanic+Balto-Slavic Plural forms: Celtic shows traces of an

instrumental -bhis (cf. O.Ir. dat.-loc.-ins.-abl. cridib, and in Graeco-Aryan, cf. O.Ind.
sūnúbhis, Av. bāzubīs, Arm. srtiwkh), Italic and Celtic show a dat.-abl. -bhos (cf. Celtiberian
dat.-loc.-ins.-abl. arecoraticubos, Lat. matribus, Osc. luisarifs), while Balto-Slavic shows
Inst. -mis (cf. Lith. sunumìs, O.C.S. synumĭ), dat.-abl. -mos (cf. O.C.S. synŭmŭ, Lith.
sūnùms, sūnùmus), and Germanic shows a dat.-abl.-ins. -m-.
Meier-Brügger (2003) considers that “[e]vidence seems to indicate that while the dative
and ablative plural were marked with *-mos, the instrumental plural was marked with *-bhi
(…) Thus, -bh- would have established itself in Italic and Indo-Iranian as the sole initial
consonant, replacing -m-. Conversely, -m- would have established itself in Balto-Slavic and
Germanic. Indo-Iranian *-bhi̯as can thus be regarded as a cross between the instrumental *-
bhi and the dative/ablative *-mos”. Similarly Mallory–Adams (2007) differentiate for the
oldest PIH declension a Dat. *-mus, instrumental *-bhi, and Abl. *-bh(j)os. Kortlandt (1983)
and Beekes (1985) reconstruct an original Dat. Pl. *-mus and Abl. Pl. *-jos, both supposedly
substituted later by the ending *-bh(j)os.
For an original *-mus, the Leiden school revitalised an old claim (Van Helten 1890, Loewe
1918) to explain the lack of Umlaut of -i in dat. pl., as e.g. OHG tagum, which followed
Georgiev’s (1963) and Kortlandt’s (1983) proposals to explain the ending away by comparing
it to O.Lith. -mus, thereby suggesting an original *-u-. That proposal has been questioned
e.g. on the basis that the O.Prus. dat. pl. -mans, is generally believed to have resulted from
the contamination of dat. Pl. *-mos > -mas, and acc. Pl. -ans (Bemeker 1896, Brugmann 1911,
Poljakov 1995). The Leiden position has been questioned on the grounds of the late and
dialectal character of BSl. and Gmc. edings among others by Álvarez-Pedrosa (2001)
<http://revistas.ucm.es/fll/15781763/articulos/ESLC0101110239A.PDF>, and Halla-aho
(2006), see <http://ethesis.helsinki.fi/julkaisut/hum/slavi/vk/halla-aho/problems.pdf>).
Fortson (2004) sums up the problem of reconstructing -bh- and -m- endings for PIH: “ All
this taken together suggests that the *-bh- and * -m- endings developed late, probably after
Anatolian split off from the family, and may have originally been postpositions or adverbs
ultimately related to Eng. by and Germ. mit ‘with’. (It is cross-linguistically common for
postpositions to develop into case-endings.)”
What is certain is that there was a NWIE west/east dialectal differentiation into -bh- or -
m-; i.e. dat.-abl. pl. -bhos/-mos (and PII -bhjas), ins. sg. -bhi/-mi, ins. pl. -bhis/-mis.
We generally prefer to write the only the forms in -bh- in this grammar, though, given the
extension of those forms in all PIE territory, against the forms in -m-, limited to Germanic
and Balto-Slavic. In any case, when writing these endings, one should keep in mind that they
are dialectally distributed in a uniform way, so that forms in -bh- are not found in the same
branches as those in -m-; i.e., if you use forms in -m- when writing or speaking IE, don’t use
forms in -bh-, and vice versa.
f. Inanimates have a syncretic form for nom.-acc.-voc. -∅ in athematics, or -m in
thematics. The plural forms end in -.

162
 4. Nouns

NOTE. Inanimates have a nom.-voc.-acc in *-(e/o)h2, which evolved as -ā in Sanskrit and

Slavic, and -a in most other dialects. A convention is therefore followed in this book, using
short -a to distinguish the overlapping neu. pl. nom.-voc.-acc. from the fem. sg. nom.
g. All animates share the same form in the plural for nom.-voc. -es.
4.1.4. The so-called oblique cases – opposed to the straight ones, nom.-acc.-voc –
, are the genitive and the obliques proper, i.e. ablative, dative, locative, and
instrumental. Straight cases are generally identified with strong cases (those which
do not undergo ablaut in athematic declension), while the rest are the weak cases.
NOTE. IE languages show an irregular oblique declension system, especially in the plural,
due to its syncretic original nature and to late dialectal merging trends. Sanskrit or Avestan
had 8 cases. Anatolian and Italic dialects show up to 8 (cf. Osc. loc. aasai for Lat. ‘in ārā’, or
ins. cadeis amnud for Lat. ‘inimicitiae causae’, preiuatud for Lat. ‘prīuātō’, etc.). Balto-Slavic
shows seven, Mycenaean at least six cases, while Koiné Greek and Proto-Germanic had five.

Nominal Desinences (Summary)

Singular Plural
Animates Inanimates Animates Inanimates
NOM. -s, -∅
-es
VOC. -e, -∅ -m, -∅ -, -∅
ACC. -m -ns
GEN. -es/-os/-s; -osjo -om
ABL. -es/-os/-s; -ēd/-ōd/-d -bhos (-mos); -om
DAT. -ei -bhos (-mos)
LOC. -i -su (-si)
INS. -ē/-◌̄; -bhi (-mi) -eis; -bhis (-mis)

163
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

4.2. FIRST DECLENSION

4.2.1. FIRST DECLENSION PARADIGM

1. They are usually animate nouns and end in ā (or jā), and rarely in ja/ī, ē, and
ō. Stems in ā are very common, generally feminine in nouns and always in
adjectives, and the ā ending is used to make feminines in the adjectival motion.
Those in ja/ī are rare, generally feminine, and etymologically identical to the neuter
plural in nom.-acc.-voc. Those in ō and ē are feminine only in lesser used words.
NOTE. The entire stem could have been reduced to IE a (hence a-stem declension), because
this is the origin of the whole PIE stem system, the ending *-(e)h2.
2. The IE first declension corresponds loosely to the Latin first declension (cf. Lat.
rosa, rosae, or puella, puellae), and to the Ancient Greek alpha declension (cf. Gk.
χώρᾱ, χώρᾱς, or τῑμή, τῑμῆς).
a-Declension Singular Paradigm

NOM. -∅
VOC. -∅ (-◌̆)
ACC. -m
GEN. -s
ABL. -d/(-s)
DAT. -i
LOC. -i
INS. -∅/-bhi (-mi)

NOTE. This declension in ā, older *-eh2, is usually reconstructed in the singular as older
(athematic) PIH nom.-voc. *-eh2 (voc. -h2e?) acc. *-eh2m̥, gen.(-abl.) *-(e)h2os, dat. *-(e)h2ei,
loc. *-eh2i, ins. *-(e)h2eh1, abl. *-(e)h2ed; as, dat. *h1ekw(e)h2ei → ekwāi (see Beekes 1995,
Clackson 2007). The ablative sg. was linked to the genitive sg. (-s) in the older stages of the
language, but as the feminine declension was adapted to the thematic declension in o/e, an
ablative in -d was generalised already by Late Indo-European. From Beekes (1995),
Adrados–Bernabé–Mendoza (1995-1998), Clackson (2007).
3. It is therefore identical to those nouns in r, n, s of the fourth declension, but for
some details in vocalism: the gen. has an -s and not -es/-os; the difference between
nom. and voc. can be obtained by nom. -ā vs. voc. -a (as found in Gk. and BSl.). The
zero-grade of the nom.-acc.-voc. in ja/ī stems is different from the gen. in jā.

164
 4. Nouns

4.2.2. FIRST DECLENSION IN EXAMPLES

1. Nominative singular in -∅; as, ekwā, mare, patrjā, fatherland, adj. newā,
new, cowij, bovine.
NOTE. The representative noun of this paradigm is the word for ‘mare’ which occurs in
Sanskrit áśvā, Latin equa and (Old) Lithuanian ašvà. This word is probably not of common
PIE origin, although it is likely a post-LIE word that appeared to differentiate the feminine
of the animate ‘horse’, which was previously used for male and female alike. Clackson (2007).
Examples of ja/ī include potnja/potnī, lady, mistress, deiwja/deiwī, goddess.
NOTE. Stems in ja/ī (<*-ih2) are productive in adjectives of the -u- and -nt- form, found
generally as -ī in Indo-Iranian (cf. Skt. bhárantī), -ja in NWIE (cf. O.C.S. nesǫšti <*-ontj-)
and PGk (cf. phérousa<*-ontja), Beekes (1995). Because they were not productive in nouns
already in IEDs, the declension of the attested nouns is frozen as an athematic stem from
which they derive. So e.g. from nom. deiwī, Skt. dev-, Gk. dı̄̂-a (<*diw-ja), gen.-abl.
diwjs, cf. Skt. dev-ys, Gk. d-ās (<*diw-jās). Clackson (2007).
Those in ē, ō, also rare, make the nominative in -s; as, spekjēs, aspect.
NOTE. These are known from Latin (since Indo-Iranian merged ē with ā especially from
the word for ‘path’. Like the forms from *-ih2, these old nouns in *-eH or *-oH retain their c-
stem declension paradigm (with accent-ablaut); a famous example found in Beekes (1995)
or Fortson (2004) includes pontēs, path, found in Skt. pánthās, Av. pantå, and afield in
Lat. vātēs – although later reinterpreted as i-stem pontis in NWIE, cf. Lat. pons, Russ. put’,
O.Pruss. pintis. Its declension is reconstructed as nom. pontēs, acc. pontēm, gen. pṇtós,
ins. pl. pṇtbhí.
2. Vocative singular in -∅. It is normally identical to the nominative, but
disambiguation could happen with distinct vowel grades, i.e. nom. in -ā, voc. in -a.
NOTE. According to Ringe (2006), the vocative of those in ja/ī<*-iH would have been
made in *-i, following the example of the ‘fall of the laryngeal’ in vocatives of those in *-aH.

3. Accusative singular in -m; as, ekwām, patrjām, potnjam/potnīm,

spekjēm.
4. Genitive singular in -s; as, ekwās, patrjās, spekjēs.
Stems in ja/ī produces a genitive singular in -ās; as, potnjās.
5. Dative-ablative singular in -āi, ekwāi, patrjāi.
NOTE. This LIE -i comes probably from an older PIE general dat. *-ei ending; as,
*h1ekweh2-ei → ekwāi. A dat.-abl. ending *-ei is also found for stems in ē and in ja/ī.
6. Locative singular in -āi; as, ekwāi, patrjāi.
7. Instrumental singular in -∅, -ā-bhi, -ā-mi; as, ékwābhi, pátrjābhi.

165
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

f. ekwā adj. f. cowij f. potnja f. spekjē-

NOM. ekwā cowij potnja/potnī spekjēs
VOC. ekw cowij potnja/potnī spekjē
ACC. ekwām cowijm potnjam/potnīm spekjēm
GEN. ekwās cowijs potnjās spekjēs
ABL. ekwād cowijd potnjād spekjēd
DAT. ekwāi cowiji potnjāi spekjēi
LOC. ekwāi cowiji potnjāi spekjēi
INS. ékwābhi cowijbhi potnjābhi spekjēbhi

There is only one example from this declension with a proterodynamic inflection
(see §4.7), namely the word for ‘woman’: nom. cenā, gen. cnās, cf. O.Ir. nom. ben,
gen. mná, Skt. nom. jánis (gn), gen. gns (jányur). Beekes (1995).

4.2.3. THE PLURAL IN THE FIRST DECLENSION

1. The following table presents the plural paradigm of the a-stem declension.

a-Declension Plural Paradigm

NOM.-VOC. -s
ACC. -ns
GEN. -m
DAT.-ABL. -bhos (-mos)
LOC. -su (-si)
INS. -bhis (-mis)

NOTE. The plural is reconstructed as from PIH nom.-vocc. *-eh2(e)s, Acc. *-eh2n̥s (<**-
eh2- m̥-s), gen.(-abl.) *-(e)h2om, dat.-abl. *-(e)h2bh(j)os or *-(e)h2mus, loc. *-(e)h2su, ins. *-
(e)h2bhi(s); as, *h1ekweh2es → ekwās. From Beekes (1995), Clackson (2007).

2. Nominative-vocative plural in -s: ekwās, patrjās, cowijs.

3. Accusative plural in -ms: ekwāns, patrjāns.

4. Genitive plural in -m: ekwām, patrjām.

5. Dative and ablative plural in -bhos, -mos, and PII -bhjas; as, ékwābhos,
patrjābhos.

6. Locative plural in -su (also PGk -si); as, ékwāsu, pátrjāsu.

6. Instrumental plural in -bhis, -mis; as, ékwābhis, patrjābhis.

166
 4. Nouns

NOTE. The obliques have also special dialectal forms Gk. -āisi, -ais, Lat. -ais; as, Lat.
rosīs<*rosais.

f. ekwā f. cowij f. potnja

NOM.-VOC. ekwās cowijs potnjās
ACC. ekwāns cowijns potnjāns
GEN. ekwām cowijm potnjm
DAT.-ABL. ékwābhos cowijbhos pótnjabhos
LOC. ékwāsu cowijsu pótnjasu
INS. ékwābhis cowijbhis pótnjabhis
ABL. ékwābhos cowijbhos pótnjabhos

4.3. SECOND DECLENSION

4.3.1. SECOND DECLENSION PARADIGM

1. Nouns of the second declension have a stem ending in e/o, and they are usually
called thematic. They can be animates and inanimates, as well as adjectives. The
inanimates have an ending -m in nom.-acc.-voc. The animates, with a nominative
in -s, are generally masculine in nouns and adjectives, but there are also feminine
nouns and animate (i.e. masc.-fem.) adjectives in -os, probably remains of the old
indistinctness of animates.
NOTE. The o-stem declension is probably very recent in PIE – even though it happened
already in PIH, before the Proto-Anatolian split – and that’s why it is homogeneous in most
IE dialects. As Mallory–Adams (2007) say, “[t]he o-stems were the most productive form of
declension. By this is meant that through time, especially at the end of the Proto-Indo-
European period and into the early histories of the individual Indo-European languages, the
o-stems appeared to proliferate and replace other stem types. In Vedic Sanskrit, for example,
they constitute more than half of all nouns. High productivity is often interpreted as evidence
that the o-stems are a later declensional form than many of the other stems. Highly
productive forms are ultimately capable of replacing many other forms as they provide the
most active model by which speakers might decline a form.”
2. The IE second declension is equivalent to the second declension in Latin (cf.
Lat. dominus, dominī, or uinum, uinī), and to the omicron declension in Greek (cf.
Gk. λόγος, λόγου, or δῶρον, δῶρου).

167
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

o-Declension Singular Paradigm

Animate Inanimate
NOM. -os
VOC. -e -om
ACC. -om
GEN. -os/-osjo/(-oso)/(-ī)
ABL. -ēd/-ōd
DAT. -ōi
LOC. -ei/-oi
INS. -ē/-ō

NOTE 1. This model could have been written without the initial vowel -o-; the probable
origin of this vowel is the ending of some primitive ‘original’ stems in -o, while other,
primitive athematic stems would have then been reinterpreted, and an -o added to their
stems by means of analogy (Adrados–Bernabé–Mendoza 1995-1998). This paradigm could
be read from a historical point of view as nom. -s, acc. -m, gen. -s, -sjo, -so, and so on.
NOTE 2. The thematic declension is usually reconstructed in the singular as from older
PIH nom. *-os, voc. *-e, acc. *-om (neu. nom.-voc.-acc. *-om), gen. *-os, dat. *-ōi (<**-o-ei),
loc. *-oi, ins. *-oh1, abl. *-ōd (<**-o-ed); as, dat. *wl̥kwo-ei → wḷqōi, abl. *wl̥kwo-ed →
wḷqōd. Sometimes, the a-stem and o-stem ablative is reconstructed as from PIE *-ot or *-
et, or even *-h2at (in Fortson 2004). As we have seen, -d and -t are pronounced alike at the
end of the word, so the difference is mainly an etymological one.

4.3.2. SECOND DECLENSION IN EXAMPLES

1. Nominative singular animate in -os; as in wḷqos, wolf, dómūnos, lord, wīrós,
man, adj. cīwós, alive.
2. Vocative singular animate in -e; as in wḷqe, dómūne, cīwé.
3. Accusative singular animate in -om; as in wḷqom, dómūnom, cīwóm.
4. Nominative-vocative-accusative singular inanimate in -om; as in jugóm, yoke,
adj. newom, new.
5. Genitive singular in -os, -osjo, also -e/oso, -ī; as in wḷqosjo, jugós,
dómūnosjo.
NOTE. The original genitive form -os is rare in animates, as the genitive had to be
distinguished from the nominative. This disambiguation happens by alternatively
lengthening the ending, as -os-jo (or -e/os-o, probably from the pronominal declension) or
changing it altogether, as in Ita.-Cel. -ī. In Hittite, the genitive -os is found, so it is usually
considered the oldest form, as in the athematic declension. A generalised -osjo is found in

168
 4. Nouns

Sanskrit, Armenian, Greek and Italic, so this alternative ending must have replaced -os early,
still within the LIE community.

6. Ablative singular in -ōd, -ēd: wḷqōd, cīwṓd, jugṓd.

7. Dative singular in -ōi: wḷqōi, dómūnōi, newōi, jugṓi.
8. Locative singular in -oi, -ēi: wḷqoi, dómūnoi, newoi, jugói.
9. Instrumental singular in -ō, -ē: wḷqō, dómūnō, newō, jugṓ.

m. wḷqo- n. jugó- adj. newo-

NOM. wḷqos jugóm newos
VOC. wḷqe jugom newe
ACC. wḷqom jugóm newom
GEN. wĺqosjo jugós newosjo
ABL. wḷqōd jugṓd newōd
DAT. wḷqōi jugṓi newōi
LOC. wḷqoi jugói newoi
INS. wḷqō jugṓ newō

4.5.3. THE PLURAL IN THE SECOND DECLENSION

1. The thematic plural system is usually depicted as follows:
o-Declension Plural Paradigm

Animate Inanimate
NOM.-VOC. -ōs/(-oi)
-
ACC. -ons
GEN. -m/-ēm
DAT.-ABL. -obhos (-omos)
LOC. -oisu (-oisi)
INS. -is

NOTE. The animate plural paradigm is reconstructed as PIH nom.-voc. *-ōs (<**-o-es),
acc. *-ons (<**-o-m-s), gen.(-abl.) *-m (<**-o-om), dat.-abl. *-o(i)bh(j)os/-omos, loc. *-
oisu (<**-o-eis-su), ins. *-is (<**-o-eis); as,*wl̥kwo-es → wḷqōs. Inanimates have a nom.-
voc.-acc in *-(e/o)h2 evolved as -ā in Sanskrit and Slavic, and -a in most dialects. A nom.-
voc. (pronominal) ending -oi is also found. See Beekes (1995), Fortson (2004), Clackson
(2007).

2. Nominative-vocative animate plural in -ōs; as, wḷqōs, dómūnōs, wīrṓs.

169
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

3. Accusative animate pural in -ons; as, wḷqons, dómūnons, cīwóns.

4. Nom.-voc.-acc. inanimate plural in -; as, jugá, cīwá.
5. Genitive plural in -ōm; as, wḷqōm, dómūnōm, cīwṓm, jugṓm.
6. Dative and ablative plural in -obhos, -omos; as, wḷqobhos, cīwóbhos.

7. Locative in -oisu, PGk. -oisi; as, wīrṓisu, dómūnoisu.

8. Instrumental in -is; dómūnōis, cīwṓis, jugṓis.

m. wlqo- n. jugó- adj. newo-

NOM.-VOC. wḷqōs jug newōs
ACC. wḷqons jug newons
GEN. wḷqōm jugṓm newōm
DAT.-ABL. wĺqobhos jugóbhos newobhos
LOC. wĺqōisu jugóisu newōisu
INS. wḷqōis jugṓis newōis

4.4. THIRD DECLENSION

4.4.1. THIRD DECLENSION PARADIGM

1. Third declension nouns end in i, u (also ī, ū) and diphthong. They are found as
neuter, masculine or feminine; those in ī, ū, are always feminine.
2. This declension usually corresponds to Latin nouns of the third declension in -i
(cf. Lat. ciuis, ciuis, or pars, partis), and of the fourth declension in -u (cf. Lat.
cornū, cornūs, or portus, portūs), and to Greek vowel stems in ι, υ, ευ, αυ, ου, ω (cf.
Gk. ἰχθύς, ἰχθύος, or πόλις, πόλεως).
i/u-Declension Singular Paradigm

Animate Inanimate
NOM. -s
VOC. -∅ -∅
ACC. -m
GEN.- -s
DAT. -ei
LOC. -∅/-i
INS. -◌̄/-ē/-bhi (-mi)

170
 4. Nouns

NOTE. The i/u-stem declension is a variation of the common athematic declension of c-

stems. The obliques show weak stems (root ablaut and accent shift) in some nouns.
The proterodynamic paradigm for u-stems is reconstructed in the sg. as nom. *-u-s, voc. *-
eu, acc. *-u-m, gen. *-ou-s, dat. *-eu-i, loc. *-ēu, ins. *-u-h1; for i-stems nom. *-i-s, voc. *-ei,
acc. *-i-m, gen. *-oi-s, dat. *-ei-i, loc. *-ēi, ins. *-i-h1. See Beekes (1995).
3. The -s can indicate nominative and genitive: the distinction is made through the
full-grade or extension of the vowel before the declension, see below.

4.4.2. IN I, U
1. Nominative sg. animate in -s; as, owis, sheep, noqtis, night, ghostis, guest,
sūnús, son, egnis, fire, pṛtus, ford, swḗdhus, custom; adj. swādus, pleasant.
2. Vocative singular animate in -∅, or full grade -ei, -eu; owi, sūnéu/sūneu,
swēdhu.
3. Accusative singular animate in -m; as in owim, noqtim, ghostim, sūnúm.
4. Nominative-vocative-accusative singular inanimate in -∅; as in mari, sea, kṛdi,
heart, peku, cattle, deru, wood, medhu, mead, adj. swādu.
5. The genitive singular shows two inflection types:
• Type I genitive singular in -eis, -eus, also -ois, -ous; as, ghosteis, mareis,
sūnéus, swēdheus, adj. swādeus.
• Type II genitive singular in -(e)jos, -(e)wos; as, owjos, noqtjos, kṛdejós,
swḗdhewos, pékewos.
NOTE 1. About both types of inflection, a description was made by Wackernagel-
Debrunner (Altindische Grammatik, 3 vols., 1896/1954), Kuryłowicz (The inflectional
categories of Indo-European, 1964), Szemerényi (1985), etc. It is so found in Sihler (1995),
Adrados–Bernabé–Mendoza (1995-1998).
They are usually said to be derived from a PIH proterodynamic inflection, originally made
with a weak form (vowel change and accent shift), from which LIE simplified its root ablaut
formation and accentuation; starting from the weak stems, zero grade roots were generalised
and accents became static on the root or the suffix (Meier-Brügger, 2003); as, from PIH
*pertus, pṛtéus, remade LIE (without root ablaut) pṛtus, pṛtewos, v.i. §4.7.
NOTE 2. Both types are sometimes said to be derived from two ‘original’ PIH i/u-stem
accent-ablaut inflections, later merged into the known paradigms. They would have been a
proterokinetic inflection, represented by **mént-ēi-s, **mént-i-m, **mṇt-éi-s, and an
amphikinetic (?) inflection represented by **h3ew-i-s, **h3w-éi-m, **h3w-jo-s, that gave
birth to the LIE types known to us. Sihler (1995): “In any case, the surviving i-stem
inflections, which in this view are a sort of Chinese menu selection of items from
[proterokinetic] and [amphikinetic], exhibit too much agreement in detail in InIr., Gmc., Ital.
and BS to be independent innovations. Accordingly, even if this theory is accepted, the

171
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

necessary leveling to get to the usual reconstruction must have been complete in the parent
language.”
A collection of inflected nouns may be found at
<http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~rnoyer/courses/51/PIENouns.pdf>; among them, noqts as
consonant stem (p.11), and mén-ti-s with gen. mn̥-téi-s, which is attested in Goth. -ti
inflection, Osc. aiteis or O.Ind. mateh. However, O.Ind. matyāh (probably analogic) and Lat.
senatuos for stems in -tu are difficult to explain. It seems that the arguments to consider gen.
-téis and not -tjos are solid enough.
6. Dative in -ei, usually full -ei-ei, -eu-ei; as, ghóstejei, pékewei.
NOTE. For dat. sg. -ei, pure stem or full ending in -i, cf. Gk. -seï (<*-t-ej-i?), O.C.S. kosti.
7. Locative in -ei, -eu, usually lengthened -ēi, -ēu, -ewi; as, noqtēi, sunḗu.
8. Instrumental in -ī, -ū (<*-h1), in -ē (<*-eh1) following the genitive, or in-bhi, -
mi: pṛtū, pṛtéwē.
NOTE. While the instrumental ending *-h1 (from Indo-Iranian) follows the athematic
declension, the ending -mi from Balto-Slavic (hence also LIE -bhi) follows the thematic
declension, but could have been a later innovation from an old trend to reinterpret athematic
as thematic nouns. The older Hitt. -awet doesn’t clarify the situation.

Type I Type II
f. ghosti- m. n.mari- f. noqti- m. pṛtu- n. peku-
NOM. ghostis sūnús mari noqtis pṛtus peku
VOC. ghosti sūnéu mari noqtei pṛtu peku
ACC. ghostim sūnúm mari noqtim pṛtum peku
G.-A. ghosteis sūnéus mareis noqtjos pṛtéwos pékewos
DAT. ghóstejei sūnéwei márejei nóqtejei pṛtéwei pékewei
LOC. ghostēi sūnḗu marēi noqtēi pṛtḗu pékewi
INS. ghostī sūnewē marī noqtī pṛtéwē pekū

NOTE. For information on the alternative reconstruction mari/mori, sea, see Appendix
II Formal Aspects.
THE STRONG TYPE
Its inflection is similar to the consonant stems, and they have no alternating
vowels before the declension; ī and ū are substituted before vowel by -ij, -uw. They
are always feminine, and they cannot be inanimates nor adjectives. They are mostly
PIE roots (in *-iH, *-uH), and found mainly in Indo-Iranian.
NOTE. This inflection is usually classified within the i/u-stems, for nouns where an i
precedes the final laryngeal, i.e. in *-i(e)H- (It is not always clear when it comes from *-h1
and when from *-h2; they were probably completely parallel in LIE and merged). The old

172
 4. Nouns

declension shows nom. *-iH, acc. *-ieH-m, gen. *-iH-os: in Sanskrit *-iH became
generalised, showing gen. -ías, while Slavic and Germanic show -jā- < *-jəH. The *-uH stems
are completely parallel with those in *-iH; cf. for ‘tongue’, a general LIE dṇghwā, but also
found as PII dṇghūs. See Beekes (1995), Adrados–Bernabé–Mendoza (1995-1998).
Only NWIE forms and declension is followed here (wḷqī-, she-wolf, is apparently found in
Celtic, apart from Indo-Iranian).

f. bhrū- f. sū- f. dhī- f. wḷqī-

NOM. bhrūs sūs dhīs wḷqīs
VOC. bhrū sū dhī wḷqī
ACC. bhrūm sūm dhīm wĺqīm
GEN.-ABL. bhruws suws dhijs wḷqijs
DAT. bhruwéi suwéi dhijéi wḷqijéi
LOC. bhruwí suwí dhijí wḷqijí
INS. bhrūbhí sūbhí dhībhí wḷqībhí

4.4.3. IN DIPHTHONG

1. There are long diphthongs āu, ēu, ōu, ēi, which sometimes present short
vowels.
NOTE. Other stems that follow this declension in the attested dialects, in ā, ē, ō, are
probably remains of older diphthongs. Therefore, these can all be classified as diphthong
endings, because the original stems were formed as diphthongs in the language history.
Its paradigm is reconstructed for those in -u as *-ē/ōus(s), acc. *-e/ou-m, gen. *-u-os, and
for those in -i as nom. *-oi, *-is, acc. *-oi-m, gen. *-i-os. Beekes (1995). It is not a common
declension, and IE nouns proper included in it are found inflected as follows: strong forms
with nom. *-s, voc. *-∅, acc. *-m, loc. *-i; weak forms with gen.-abl. *-és, dat. *-éi, ins. *-éh1.

m. f. cōu- m. djēu- f. nāu-

NOM. cōus djēus nāus
VOC. cou djeu nāu
ACC. cōm djēm/dijḗm nāum
GEN.-ABL. cous diwós nāwós
DAT. cowéi diwéi nāwéi
LOC. cowi djewi/diwí nāwí
INS. cowḗ diwḗ nāwḗ
NOTE. An expected accent-ablaut reconstruction for nāu- would be strong nāu <*neh2u-
, weak nau-<*nh2u- or rather *n°h2u-; however, forms in nāu- are found in Vedic and

173
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

Ancient Greek dialects throughout the whole paradigm, possibly indicating older strong
*noh2u- and weak *neh2u-, respectively. See Meier-Brügger (2003) for more on this question.
In zero-grade genitives there are forms with -i- or -ij-, -u- or -uw-.
NOTE 1. Some secondary formations – especially found in Greek – are so declined, in -
eus, -ewos as in Av. bāzāus, Arm.,Gk. Basileus, possibly from PIE -āus (Perpillou, 1973)
but Beekes (2007) considers it Pre-Greek.
NOTE 2. Stang’s law governs the word-final sequences of a vowel + semivowel j or w +
nasal, simplified in PIE so that semivowels are dropped, with compensatory lengthening of
a preceding vowel, i.e. VJM → V̄M; as, djēm, not *djewm̥; cōm, not *gwowm̥, cōns, not
*gwown̥s, etc. A similar trend is found with laryngeals, *VJh₂m > V̄M; as, sūm, also attested
as suwṃ, etc.

4.4.4. THE PLURAL IN THE THIRD AND FOURTH DECLENSION

1. The following table depicts the general plural system of the third and fourth
declensions.

i/u- and Consonant-Declension Plural Paradigm

Animate Inanimate
NOM.-VOC. -es
-
ACC. -ns
GEN. -m/-ēm
DAT.-ABL. -bhos (-mos)
LOC. -su (-si)
INS. -bhis (-mis)

NOTE. An older plural paradigm for u-stems is reconstructed as nom.-voc. *-eu-es, acc. *-
u-ns, gen.-abl. *-eu-om, dat. *-u-bhos, *-u-mos (<**-u-mus?), loc.* -u-su, ins. *-u-bhis, *-u-
mis (<**-u-bhi?). See Beekes (1995), Fortson (2004).
2. Unlike in the singular, in which only some nominatives have an -s, in nom.-voc.
plural the -s is general, and there is always one fix-grade vowel, e. So, the opposition
singular-plural in -s/-es is actually ∅/e.
3. The nom.-voc. plural animate is made in -es, in full-grade -ei-es for i, -eu-es
for u, and -ijes, -uwes, for ī, ū; as ówejes, sūnewes, pŕtewes, bhruwes.
4. The accusative plural animate is in -ns: owins, sūnúns, pṛtuns, cōns.
5. The nom.-voc. acc. plural inanimate in -a: pekwa, marja, swādwa.
NOTE. The athematic inanimate plural ending commonly represented by -a corresponds
to an older collective *-h2, which sometimes lengthened the preceding vowel (i or u) instead.

174
 4. Nouns

6. Gen. pl. in -om (type I usually in full -ei-om, -eu-om); as, ghóstejom,
pṛtwom.
NOTE. The -m of the acc. sg. animate, nom.-acc.-voc. sg. inanimate and this case could
sometimes be confused. It was often disambiguated with the vocalic grade of the genitive,
full or lengthened, as the singular is always ∅.
7. For the obliques plural, cf. dat.-abl. ówibhos, sūnubhos, nóqtibhos; loc.
sūnusu, nóqtisu, ins. sūnubhis, ówibhis, máribhis.
Type I Type II Diphth.
f. ghosti- m. sūnu- f. noqti- n. peku- m. cou-
NOM.- ghóstejes sūnewes nóqtejes pekwa cowes
ACC. ghostins sūnúns noqtins pekwa cōns
GEN. ghóstejom sūnewom noqtjom pekwom cowom
DAT.- ghóstibhos sūnubhos nóqtibhos pékubhos coubhos
LOC. ghóstisu sūnusu nóqtisu pékusu cousu
INS. ghóstibhis sūnubhis nóqtibhis pékubhis coubhis

4.5. FOURTH DECLENSION

4.5.1. FOURTH DECLENSION PARADIGM

1. The stem of nouns of the second declension ends in consonant or resonant, i.e.
-n, -r, -s, occlusive (especially -t), and rarely -l, -m. The inflection of animates is
essentially the same as that of the second or thematic declension.
2. Nouns of the fourth declension correspond to Latin nouns of first declension in
-r (cf. Lat. magister, magistrī), and third declension in consonant (cf. Lat. prīnceps,
prīncipis, cōnāmen, cōnāminis, etc.), and to the Ancient Greek consonant stems
declension (cf. Gk. πατὴρ, πατρὸς, τάπης, τάπητος, ἡγεμών, ἡγεμόνος, etc.).
The nominative ending is -s (with occlusive, -m, -l), but there is also a nominative
sg. with pure stem vowel (desinence -∅ and lengthened ending vowel), so that the
full-grade vocative is differentiated. And there is no confusion in nom./gen., as -s
has a different vowel grade (nom. -s, gen. -és or -os).

175
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

Consonant-Declension Singular Paradigm

Occlusive, -m, -l -r, -n, -s

NOM. -s -∅ (long vowel)
ACC. -ṃ
VOC. -∅ -∅ (full grade)
GEN.- -es/-os
DAT. -ei
LOC. -i/-∅
INS. -ē/-bhi (-mi)
NOTE. The so-called common, basic or athematic paradigm, the hypothetically oldest
attainable PIE noun declension system, is reconstructed in the singular as nom. *-s, *-∅, voc.
*-∅, acc. *-m, gen.-abl. *-(e/o)s, dat. *-ei, loc. *-i, *-∅, ins. *-(e)h1. See Meier-Brügger (2003),
Fortson (2004). This paradigm was originally common to the i/u-stems, and it was probably
inherited (and innovated) by the first and second declensions.

Besides the usual loc. ending -i there was also the bare stem without ending. Such
unmarked (‘flat’) locatives are widely encountered in modern languages (cf. Eng. next door,
home), and in PIE they are well-attested in n-stems, but are rare in other consonant stems.

3. Inanimates have pure vowel stems with different vowel grades. In nouns there
should be no confusion at all, as they are different words, but neuter adjectives could
be mistaken in nominative or vocative animate. Distinction is thus obtained with
vocalism, as in animate -ōn vs. inanimate -on, animate -ēs vs. inanimate -es
(neuter nouns in -s show -os).

4.5.2. IN OCCLUSIVE, M, L
1. Nominative sg. animate in -s; as, pods, foot, regs, king, preks, plea, ghjems,
winter, nepēts, grandson, adj. bélowents, strong.

NOTE. The nom. of some stems are often reconstructed with a long vowel; as, *pōds, *rēgs,
*prēks. Such forms are found in the different languages showing ablaut with lengthened
grade; as, ō/o in Goth. fotus, Gk. pód-a, and ē/e in Lat. pēs, pedis. It is usually interpreted
that these are levelled forms from an original o/e opposition, so the long vowel vs. short
vowel becomes unnecessary for the parent language. Also, sometimes it is doubted whether
the original nominative had an s, cf. *pōd(s) in Beekes (1995), because all attested languages
show a lengthened vowel with either the final occlusive or -s, but not with both (cf. Skt. pt,
which could derive from *ō, *ē, or *o, Dor. Gk. pōs, Lat. pēs), what suggests a compensatory
lengthening with the loss of a final consonant cluster, that was reinterpreted as the original

176
 4. Nouns

stem in declension (e.g. to form the accusative in some languages), i.e pods → *pōs → *pōds
(Sihler 1995).
2. Accusative singular animate in -ṃ; as, podṃ, regṃ, ghjemṃ, népētṃ,
bélowentṃ.

NOTE. Forms in m make the accusative by lengthening the root vowel, *Vmm > *V̄m, as a
consequence of Stang’s Law, v.s. §4.4.2; as, nom. *doms, ‘house’, acc. *dōm (<*dom-ṃ), cf.
Arm. tun or Gk. δῶ, or nom. *dhghōm, ‘earth’, acc. *dhghōm (<*dhghom-ṃ), cf. Skt. kṣām.
Root nouns like these ones are quite old in the language history, and are therefore rare in
LIE, which had replaced them for newer derived nouns; as, domos, house, or dhghṃós,
earth.
3. Vocative singular animate in -∅; as, pod, reg, bélowent.

4. The nom.-voc.-acc. singular inanimate in -∅; as sal, salt, part. bheront.

5. Genitive singular in -os, -es; as, pedós, rēgos, bhurghos, ghimós, salós,
népotos, bélowentos, bhérontos.

NOTE. Older root nouns made the genitive-ablative often in -s, -é/ós, i.e. ablaut and
accent on stem vowel; as, for strong nom. *doms, weak gen. *dems or *dmés/dmós, for
strong nom. *dhghōm, gen. *dhghmés/*dhghmós or (possibly already in the proto-
language) metathesised *ghdhmés/*ghdhmós. They appear in IEDs mainly frozen in
compounds (cf. dems- in demspots), because most of them were reinterpreted. On forms
like *dmés or *pdós, “[u]nsurprisingly, such forms have been largely eliminated from the
attested paradigms.” Sihler (1995). For the original lengthened grade rēgos/rēges, see §4.7.
6. Dative singular in -ei: pedei, rēgei, bhérontei.

7. Locative singular in -i: podi, regi, bélowenti.

m. pod- f. prek- n. bheront-

NOM. pods preks bheront
VOC. pod prek bheront
ACC. podṃ prekṃ bheront
GEN.-ABL. pedós prēkos bhérontos
DAT. pedéi prēkei bhérontei
LOC. pedí preki bhéronti
INS. pedbhí prēkbhi bhérontbhi

177
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

4.5.3. IN R, N, S
1. Nominative singular animate in -∅ with lengthened vowel; as in mātḗr (also
mtēr), mother, elōr, swan, kwōn, dog, osēn, autumn, ōs, mouth, mōs,
character, spēs, hope, adj. juwōn, young, ṇmātōr, motherless.
NOTE. The lengthening of the predeclensional vowel in stems in r, n and s stems has been
explained (Szemerényi’s Law) as a consequence of an older (regular PIE) nom. -s ending; as,
**ph2tér-s→*ph2tḗr, **kwon-s→*kwōn, etc.

Common s-stems without lengthening include neuter stems (which are not usually
marked in the nominative); as, opos, work, nebhos, cloud, etc.
Adjectives usually end in -es; as, sugenḗs, well-born, of good stock (cf. Gk.
eugenḗs, O.Ind. sujanāḥ).
2. Accusative sg. animate in -m; as in māterṃ, élorṃ, kwonṃ, óposṃ,
júwonṃ.

3. Voc. sg. animate in -∅ with full vowel; as mātér, élor, kúon, juwon, opos,
sugenés.

4. The nom.-acc.-voc. singular inanimate in -∅; as in nōmṇ, name, genos, kin.

The adjectives in -s have a neuter in -es; as, sugenés.
5. Genitive singular in -os, usually with an e, not an o, as the final stem vowel; as,
éleros, nómenos, bhugenos, júwenos, nébhesos, génesos, ópesos, ēsos,
spēsos; but cf. zero-grade in old stems, as mātrós, kunós, and also o, as mosós.
NOTE. Athematic nouns made the genitive in -es, -os; even though some reconstruct only
one gen. ending for an ‘original’ paradigm, we prefer to write always -ós for pragmatic
reasons; as, kunós instead of kunés. Examples of an apparently old, so-called static
inflection, is found in PII nom. mā-tr, gen. mā-tr-s, acc. pl. mā-tr-ns; remains of this rare
paradigm are also found in Gmc. dialects for ‘father’ in gen. patŕs.

6. Dative singular in -ei, mātréi, élerei, kunei, júwenei, ópesei, sugenesei.

7. Locative singular in -i: māteri, éleri, kuni, júweni, ópesi, sugenesi.
8. Instrumental singular in -ē or -bhi/-mi: mātṛbhí, élerbhi, patṛbhí,
kunbhí, júwenbhi, ópesbhi, sugenesbhi.

178
 4. Nouns

m. kwon- f. pater- n. genes- n. nomṇ- adj.sugenes-

NOM. kwōn patḗr genos nōmṇ sugenḗs
VOC. kwon patér genos nōmṇ sugenés
ACC. kwonṃ paterṃ genos nōmṇ sugenesṃ
G.-A. kunós patrós génesos nómenos sugeneses
DAT. kunéi patréi génesei nómenei sugenesei
LOC. kuní pateri génesi nómēn sugenesi
INS. kwṇbhí patṛbhí génesbhi nómenbhi sugenesbhi
NOTE. “Where the derivation is transparent, neut. s-stem nouns were built to the tonic e-
grades of verb roots. The stem had the form *-os in the (endingless) nom./acc.sg., *-ōs<**-
osH2 in the nom./acc.pl; the stem of the remaining cases and numbers was an invariant *-
es-”. Sihler (1995), who further reconstructs the inflected forms of genos, with root accent
throughout the paradigm.

4.5.4. THE PLURAL IN THE FOURTH DECLENSION

With a paradigm common to the third declension, here are some inflected
examples.

m. pod- f. prek- m. kwon- f. māter- n. genes-

N.-V. podes prekes kwones māteres génesa
ACC. podṇs prekṇs kwonṇs māterṇs génesa
GEN. pedóm prēkom kunóm mātróm génesom
D.-A. pedbhós prēkbhos kwṇbhós mātṛbhós génesbhos
LOC. pedsó prēksu kwṇsú mātṛsú génesu
INS. pedbhí prēkbhi kwṇbhí mātṛbhís génesbhis

NOTE. The plural of adj. ṇmātōr, motherless, consists of masc./fem. nom. ṇmtores,
neu. nom-voc.-acc. ṇmtora gen. ṇmatróm, etc.

4.6. VARIABLE NOUNS

4.6.1. Many nouns vary in declension, and they are called heteroclites.
4.6.2. Heteroclitic forms are isolated and archaic, given only in inanimates, as
remains of an older system, well attested in Anatolian.
4.6.3. They consist of one form to mark the nom.-acc.-voc, and another for the
obliques, usually r/(e)n; as, bhemṛ/bhémenos, thigh, ghēsṛ/ghésenos, hand,
gutṛ/gútenos, throat, kowṛ/kówenos, cavern, ūdhṛ/ū́dhenos, udder,
wedhṛ/wédhenos, weapon, etc.

179
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

4.6.4. Different paradigms are also attested:

• Opposition r/(e)n- (lengthened ending); as, jeqṛ/jeqóneros, liver,
NOTE. For PIE jeqṛ, cf. Ved. yákṛt, Gk. hēpar, Lat. iecur, Av. yākarə, and compare its Obl.
Skt. yakn-ás, Gk. hḗpat-os<*hēpn̥t-, Lat. iecinoris.
• Alternating with other suffixes; as, gheimṛ/gheims/ghjems, winter,
skīwṛ/kīwōn/skinōn, shinbone, later column, wēsṛ/wēsṇtós, spring,
wedṛ/wédenos/wodā, water, swepṛ/swopnos, dream.
• Formed from the consonant r or n of the heteroclite; as,
pāwṛ/pūr/puōn, fire, nomṛ/nómeros/nómenos, precision,
number, Gk. skōr (gen. skatos), Hitt. šakkar (gen. šaknaš), Lat. -scerda,
“shit”.
4.6.5. The heteroclites follow the form of the genitive singular when forming the
obliques. That is so in accent-ablaut and in the lengthening before declension.

4.7. INFLECTION TYPES

1. While in o-stems and generally in a-stems there are generally no accent-ablaut
changes, within the c-stems it is possible to distinguish different old accent-ablaut
patterns, which make this a more complicated declension.
NOTE. Fortson (2004): “To understand athematic nomina inflection, one must distinguish
between the so-called strong and weak cases. The strong cases differ from the weak cases
typically in where the accent is located and which morpheme is in the full grade; most
commonly, the full grade and the accent shift rightward in the weak cases, comparable to the
shift seen in most athematic verbs.”
Fortunately it is the least productive of all declensions (i.e. it is infrequent in new
nouns), and most stems that included accent-ablaut patterns were progressively
substituted for other stems in LIE.
NOTE. Fortson (2004): “All athematic nouns consisted of three parts: root, suffix, and
ending. (...) As already alluded to, these three morphemes could each show up in different
ablaut grades depending principally on the position of the accent, which could fall on any of
the three. According to the standard theory, in any given case-form of an athematic noun the
unstressed morphemes appeared in the zero-grade, while the stressed morphemes were in a
grade “stronger” than zero-grade- that is, one with a vowel, generally e, but also o.”
2. We can distinguish at least two kinds of inflections in PIE, which differ in ablaut
and accent. These types are called hysterodynamic (dynamis ‘accent’; hystero-
‘more toward the back’) and proterodynamic (protero- ‘more toward the front). In
these types the accent shifts rightward in the weak cases from its position in the
strong cases (Beekes 1995).

180
 4. Nouns

NOTE. Other inflection pattens are apparently inherited from the parent language – the
definition, pattern and the very existence of some of them is still debated –, but they are
usually not found in IEDs, if not in frozen remains of the older system. Therefore, it is not
interesting to complicate the regular athematic system further, and we will treat such
remains as irregularities of a common LIE system. For more information, see below.
3. The neuters followed the proterodynamic inflection, and do not have nom. -s,
acc. -m. Some of the masculine-feminine nouns follow the proterodynamic
inflection too.
4. In hysterodynamic nouns, the suffix is accented in the strong cases, the ending
in the weak. So e.g. in the word for ‘father’, we have strong nom. sg. pa-tḗr s, acc.
sg. patér-ṃ, but weak gen. pa-tr-és.
NOTE. Fortson (2004): “Root nouns with mobile accent (on the root in the strong cases,
on the endings in the weak cases) are often considered as belonging to this type, though the
fit is not exact: they have full grade or lengthened grade of the root in the strong cases and
full grade of the ending in the weak cases”. For pragmatic purposes, we will include nouns
formed with only a root and ending among hysterodynamics, too. The most common type
has o-grade of the root in strong cases, and e-grade in the weak cases. So e.g. for foot, nom.
pods, acc. pedós.
In the so-called amphikinetic nouns, the root is also accented in the strong cases, the
ending in the weak, and the suffix is typically in the lengthened o-grade (rather than the
expected zero-grade) in the nominative singular, and ordinary o-grade in the accusative
singular. The old word for dawn (found in PGk and PII) belongs here; áus-ōs (c. Gk. aúōs),
acc. sg. áus-os-m̥ (Ved. uṣasam ), gen. us-s-és (Ved. usás).
5. In proterodynamic nouns, the root is in the full grade and accented in the strong
cases, and both accent and full grade shift to the suffix in the weak cases.
NOTE. According to Fortson (2004): “Most i- and u-stems in Sanskrit appear to have been
proterokinetic, such as Ved. nomin. matís ‘thought’, accus. matím, genit. mates, from PIE
*mén-ti-s, *mén-ti-m, *mn̥-téi-s.” Vedic had generalised the zero-grade of the root
throughout the paradigm, as the other languages; hence LIE mṇtis, mṇtéis. The same
could be said of the remodelling of old *pertus, *pṛtéus, remade pṛtus, pṛtewos.
As we have seen, some i/u-stems behave in parallel to those athematic nouns, showing
zero-grade ending -i-, -u- in strong cases (as nom. -i-s, -u-s, acc. -i-m, -u-m, and full-grade
-ei-, -eu- in weak cases (nom. -ei-s, -ei-os, -eu-s, -eu-os). By the time of LIE these nouns
do not usually show ablaut in their root syllable. Common examples are found of verbal
abstract nouns in -ti-, one of the most common groups of i-stems; also common were
abstract nouns in -tu-, although this usually appears in post-LIE infinitives.
Remodellings like these led to a new class of proterodynamics that descriptively had o-
grade of the root in the strong cases and zero-grade in the weak. Among animate nouns of

181
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

this type, the best attested is the word for ‘dog’, nom. kwōn, acc. kwōn-ṃ, gen. kun-ós (or
kun-és).

EXCURSUS: NOMINAL ACCENT-ABLAUT PATTERNS

While nominal accent-ablaut patterns are very interesting for internal reconstruction,
they remain a marginal issue for the largely thematic Late Indo-European language, and
more so for IEDs. The state of the art about such patterns is summed up in a recent
article by Kloekhorst at
<http://www.kloekhorst.nl/KloekhorstIENominalAblautPatterns.pdf>.
The author exposes results based on testimonies of Hittite, in which he is a renowned
expert. Accent-ablaut paradigms can be reconstructed according to two systems, Leiden
and Erlangen, which correspond to two different times, which we could roughly assign
to PIH and (early) LIE respectively. He explains the transformations from one system
to the other, from which a system of two models (static and dynamic) turns into a system
of four (static, proterodynamic, hysterodynamic, and resulting from analogical changes,
amphidynamic).
The system of four models of Erlangen is explained by Frazier in the following link,
with examples in p. 112: <http://roa.rutgers.edu/files/819-0406/819-FRAZIER-0-
0.PDF> and summed up in <http://www.unc.edu/~melfraz/ling/frazier-UCLA-
handout.pdf>.
The Erlangen system is therefore nearer to the Late Indo-European system, because
the reconstructed patterns are more recent. However, in some cases the reconstructed
forms – since they look for a logical agreement with Anatolian – are clearly different
from non-Anatolian results; as e.g. the oblique cases of *nebhos – see note 34 in
Kloekhorst’s article and Clackson (2007, p. 94).
About root nouns of the type Lat. rex, lux, pēs, etc., the problem gets more complicated.
A priori there are only two possibilities about the distribution of the tone: either static
(with columnar accent on the root), or kinetic/dynamic, with accent on the root in the
strong forms, and on the ending in the weak forms. However, to make grades and vowel
ablaut fit into common patterns is more difficult (see Appendix III.1 for some examples).
Kloekhorst shows some problems in the ablaut models of root nouns. Examples are:
• The word for ‘foot’, which is usually reconstructed as having a static paradigm, *pṓd-
s, *pód-m, *péd-s, seems to be mobile in Hittite: acc.pl. pāduš < *pód-ms vs. gen.pl.
patān < *pd-óm.
• Av. vāxs shows gen. vacō, but Old Indian and Latin show systematically lengthened
grade (gen. O.Ind. vācáh, Lat. uōcis); for example Brugmann’s Law, if applicable,

182
 4. Nouns

should apply to O.Ind. and Av. See

<http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~iranian/Avesta/a14_lesson11.pdf>, p.4 for Avestan
grammar. Hence it could be that O.Ind. and Av. alternate with different ablauts.
• The inflection of *gwow is static in Old Indian, but dynamic in Greek.
• Inflection of *ker(d) is dynamic in O.Ind., but is the only example of static inflection
in Greek, so this could correspond to an older model.
• The position of the accent in weak cases of *kwon are not coincident in Gk. and
O.Ind.
• *suH and *dieH show alternating forms in O.Ind.
• The reconstruction of *j(e)uH needs *juHs- in Sanskrit and Lithuanian, but *jeuHs-
in Slavic (de Vaan).
• Also, Greek has lost the ablaut changes in those monosyllabics (e.g. χείρ); Latin has
merged diphthongs and has lost the original ablaut patterns; O.Ind. has merged
vocalic ablaut *e/o into a; in Hittite, root nouns are limited to some words in
transition to other inflection types (pat, gwau, siw-at, nekuz, karaz, tekan, kess-ar,
gim(a)-, happar-, tuekk-). Frequently root nouns of one language are only found as
derived nouns in others, and because of that coincidences are scarce.
Paul Kiparsky helps clarify the problem with the following recent article
<http://www.stanford.edu/~kiparsky/Papers/ucla_IE_09.submitted.new.pdf>,
although in p.7 he exposes the difficulties of fitting the attested results with the created
models. In section d) p. 12 of this article, Kiparsky resorts to the artifice of ‘accented
morphemes’ to explain the brief *o of O.Ind. dat. gáve. It is possibly derived from weak
form *gwew.
Clackson (2007) proposes a different alternating paradigm; in p.86 he reconstructs
*pods, gen. *peds., while Kloekhorst in the note of p. 3 proposes *pōds/peds. In Greek
and Old Indian, these nouns aren’t acrostatic.
About Lat. rex, in Latin, Celtic, and Old Indian, the declension of this word shows
systematically lengthened grade – in Latin letter x is considered as two consonants, so
the syllable is in every case long. For results in Celtic, see p. 19 in the article
<http://www.univie.ac.at/indogermanistik/download/Stifter/oldcelt2008_1_general.
pdf>
Fort he reconstruction of this root noun there are, a priori, at least four possibilities:
a) Nom. sg. *Hregs / gen. *Hrgós, as Gk. nom. ἀνήρ <*Hner-s gen.
ἀνδρός<*Hnrós. It seems that the Vedic (Sharfe) Celtic (McCone) words for king
and queen point to that form.

183
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

b) Nom. sg. *Hregs / gen. *rēgos, as Gk. κῆρ, where the weak form is not *Hr̥g, but
*reHg-.
NOTE. It has been assumed that it is acrostatic, with alternating full/long, based on:
• The attested nominative could be analogical in relation to the weak forms.
• The long vowel appears systematically in the attested languages.
• The derived form in O.Ind. rājan has lengthened grade, when long grade was expected
(there could be a special form in Gk. arēgṓn). Cf. Av. bərəzi-rāz with Osc. meddiss (zero-
grade).
c) Nom sg. *rēgs, gen. *rēgós, taking as model O.Ind. vac (if the long vowel is not
derived from Brugmann’s Law), or náuh.
d) Nom sg. *rēgs, gen. *regós, taking as model Av. vac, or O.Ind. ap. In this case
we should have to explain the difference in results within Old Indian as a result
of later analogies with nau.
It is therefore quite difficult to obtain unequivocal reconstructions for these old
athematic root nouns, so the forms reconstructed are usually just one possibility of the
alternating patterns.
Unfortunately it often happens that we can demonstrate one form and the opposite at
the same time. Fernando López-Menchero has followed these criteria in the
reconstruction of the LIE lexicon in Appendix II, according to the available data on LIE
dialects:
Acrostatic:
• *gwow-, Lat. Bōs o/e, maybe o/o
• *knouk-, Lat. Nux o/e
• *pod-, Lat. Pēs o/e
• *woq-, Lat. Vox o/e AK maybe dynamic of the type ō/o – ō/ō (a.i.) or maybe
ō/e (Avestan), or o/o (Greek)
Dynamic:
• *djeHw-, Lat. Diēs e/∅

• *(H)reHj-, Lat. Rēs e/∅

• *weik-, Lat. Vīcus e/∅

• *leuk-, Lat. Lux e/∅

• *deuk-, Lat. Dūx e/∅

• *sneich-, Lat. Nix e/∅

• *ghjems-, Lat. Hiems e/∅

184
 4. Nouns

• *weis-, Lat. Vīs e/∅ (also *wejos/es)

Special dynamics:
• *āp/ap -, ā/a
• *kwon-, Lat. Canis o/∅

• *naHw-, Lat. Nāuis ā/ā

• *dheghom-, Lat. Humus e-o/∅-∅

• *mōs/mosós, Lat. Mōs ō/o (or maybe ō/ō?)

Without reference – these nouns are supposedly full/lengthened within an acrostatic
system, hence they are all put into the same group (even though Lat. prex is not inflected
with a long vowel):
• *leg- Lat. Lex
• *reg- Lat. Rex
• *prek- Lat. Prex
• *pag- Lat. Pax
• *H3ops (ēpos) – the laryngeal does not colour the following vowel (Eichner’s
Law)
• *ros, rēsos, Lat. Rōs (H3ops and ros could be inflected like mōs and vice
versa)
• *jeus could be inflected on the basis of *jūs; on the other hand, it is commonly
reconstructed meus as *mūs<*muHs, and *sūs<*suHs, so the weak forms
would have a long *ū (Kiparsky in p. 16 shows the same paradigm with *séuh-
nu-s, *suh-nú-s).
Some stems that only appear dialectally as root nouns have been transferred to their
general o-stem or i-stem declension:
*kerd- ‘heart’, *mems- ‘meat’, *meHns- ‘month’, *nas ‘nose’, *ner ‘man’, *noqt- ‘night’;
stems in *os/es, *puwos ‘pus, rottenness’ and *bhāos ‘light’ and ‘speech’. *sal, *dont
(assimilated to a root noun) and *weis ‘strength’ are reconstructed as alternating.
gwen- has been transferred to the feminine declension. For its consideration as root
noun, see
<http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~jasanoff/pdf/Old%20Irish%20be_.pdf>, by
Jasanoff.

185
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

4.8. NUMBER DEVELOPMENTS: THE DUAL

4.7.1. While singular and plural are relatively fixed values, the dual has proven to
be unstable; it is found in Ind.-Ira., Gk., BSl. and Cel.
NOTE. Generally speaking, the rise and decline of the dual may be directly investigated in
individual IE languages, e.g. in Greek, in which the dual is a fixed component of the language,
while it is missing altogether in Ionic and Lesbian. The origins of the dual might be found in
two word types: the personal pronoun and terms for paired body parts (as ‘ears’, ‘eyes’,
‘breasts’, etc.). It is uncertain whether the dual was an old category that gradually
disappeared, or more likely a recent (Late Indo-European) development that didn’t reach all
IE dialects. See Meier-Brügger (2003).
4.7.2. The formations vary depending on the stems.
1. The nominative-accusative-vocative is made:
• Stems in a: in -āi for ā; in -ī for ja/ī.
• Stems in o: Animates in -ōu (alternating -ō/-ōu); inanimates in -oi.
• Stems in i, u: Animates and inanimates in -ī, -ū.
• Consonant stems: in -e (not general).
NOTE. The endings are usually summed up as a common PIE *-h1(e), *-(i)h1. See Fortson
(2004).
2. The obliques were still less generalised, the system being reconstructed as
follows:
• Genitive in -ous,
• Dative-ablative in -bhos/-mos,
• Locative in -ou,
• Instrumental in -bhis/-mis.

186
 5. ADJECTIVES
5.1. INFLECTION OF ADJECTIVES
5.1.1. In Proto-Indo-European, the noun could be determined in three different
ways: with another noun, as in stone wall; with a noun in genitive, as in the father’s
house; or with an adjective, as in paternal love. The adjective corresponds to the
third way, i.e., to that kind of words – possibly derived from older genitives – that
are declined to make it agree in case, gender and number with the noun they define.
5.1.2. The adjective is from the older stages like a noun, and even today Indo-
European languages have the possibility to make an adjective a noun (as English),
or a noun an adjective (stone wall). Furthermore, some words are nouns and
adjectives as well: wersis, male, can be the subject of a verb (i.e., a noun), and can
determine a noun.
Most stems and suffixes are actually indifferent to the opposition noun/adjective.
Their inflection is common, too, and differences are usually secondary. This is the
reason why we have already studied the adjective declensions; they follow the same
inflection as nouns.
5.1.3. However, since the oldest reconstructible PIE language there were nouns
different from adjectives, as wḷqos, wolf, or pods, foot, and adjectives different
from nouns, as rudhrós, red, solwos, whole. Nouns could, in turn, be used as
adjectives, and adjectives be nominalised.
NOTE. Noun has a wide sense in PIE, for many nouns may be used both adjectivally and
substantivally, and the classification of nouns by inflectional type is independent of whether
they are substantives or adjectives. In this book the terms ‘noun’ and ‘nominal’ are then to
be interpreted in their wider sense.

5.2. THE MOTION

5.2.1. In accordance with their use, adjectives distinguish gender by different
forms in the same word, and agree with the nouns they define in gender, number
and case. This is the motion of the adjective.
5.2.2. We saw in §3.4 that there are cases of motion in the noun. Sometimes the
opposition is made between nouns, and this seems to be the older situation; as,
patḗr/mātḗr, bhrātēr/swesōr.
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

But an adjective distinguishes between masculine, feminine and neuter, or at least

between animate and neuter (or inanimate). This opposition is of two different
kinds:
a. Animates are opposed to inanimates by declension, and also vocalism and
accent; as, -os/-om, -is/-i, -nts/-nt, -ēs/-es.
b. The masculine is opposed to the feminine, when it happens, by the stem vowel;
as, -os/-ā, -nts/-ntja, -us/-wja.
NOTE. From Beekes (1995): Two feminine forms are strongly deviant:
o fem. potnja, mistress (originally powerful), next to masculine potis. The
feminine may contain the individualising suffix -en-, ‘one who is (powerful)’.
o fem. piwerja, fat, alongside masc. piwōn. Here too the forms are originally
independent: from *peiHu-ōn ‘one who is fat’, and fem. from *peiH-ur ‘fat’.
The general system may be so depicted:

Animates Inanimates
Masculine Feminine Neuter
-o- -os -ā -om
-i- -is -is -i
-u- -us -wja/-wī -u
-nt- -nts -ntja/-ntī -nt
-e- -ēs -ēs -es

5.2.3. Compare the following examples:

1. For the so-called thematic adjectives, in -os, -ā, -om, cf. somós, -, -óm,
equal, rudhrós, -, -óm, red, wolós, -, -óm, willing, kserós, -, -óm, dry, etc.
But note the root accent in newos, -ā, -om, new, solwos, -ā, -om, whole, kaikos,
-ā, -om, blind, lajos, -ā, -om, fat, etc.
NOTE. Most adjectives have o-stem, among them verbal adjectives and compound
adjectives, cf. diwós, heavenly, klutós, heard, famous. The corresponding feminine forms
feature ā.
2. For adjectives in -is, -i, cf. grṇdhís, -í, grown, lēnis, -i, weak, moinis, -i,
obliged, muttis, -i, speechless, ṇwidis, -i, ignorant, etc.
3. For adjectives in -us, -wja/-wī, -u, cf. ēsús, -ujá, -ú, good, mṛghús, -ujá, -
ú, short, leghús, -ujá, -ú, light, ōkús, -ujá, -ú, swift. With root accent, cf.
swādus, -uja, -u (Southern IE swādús, -ujá, -ú), pleasant, mḷdus, -uja, -u, soft,
tṇghus, -uja, -u, fat, tanus, -uja, -u, thin, tṛsus, -uja, -u, dry, dhṛsus, -uja, -
u, bold, etc.

188
 5. Adjectives

NOTE. On the original stress of PIE *swādus, see the so-called Erlangen School Ablaut
system, e.g. at <https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/1887/2667/1/299_021.pdf>
from Lubotsky (1987), and Frazier (2006) at <http://roa.rutgers.edu/files/819-0406/819-
FRAZIER-0-0.PDF>.
4. Adjectives in -nts, -ntja, -nt, are frequently found in suffixes; as, -went-,
possessing, rich in (masc. nom. -wents, gen. -wṇtós, neu. -wṇt, fem. -wṇt-ja),
and especially in present participles in -nt-.
The old athematic declension is reconstructed as hysterodynamic, with nom. -
´nts, acc. -´ntṃ, gen. -ntós.
NOTE. Some participles also show traces of the static inflection that we saw in athematics,
especially in PII; they show nom. -nt-s, acc. -nt-ṃ, gen. -nt-s. Beekes (1995).
However, -o/e-nt- was reinterpreted (probably still within the LIE community)
as from the thematic conjugation, where no accent-ablaut patterns are applied, see
§7.7.2. Only Sanskrit shows a generalisation of the athematic paradigm.
5. Adjectives in -ēs, -es, are found with possessive semantics formed from neuter
s-stems by internal derivation; so e.g. -klewḗs, -famed, from kléwos, fame; -
genḗs, -born, from genos, kin; or -menḗs, -minded, from menos, sense
(intelligence).
A special s-stem is perfect participle suffix -wos-, which has an ablauting
declension; as, knowing, nom. weid-wṓs (cf. O.Ind. vidús-, Av. vīduu, Gk. eidós),
acc. weid-wos-ṃ, zero-grade oblique forms, as gen. weid-us-os (cf. Skt. vidúṣas,
Av. vīdušō, Gk. weidwótos), fem. wid-us-ja / wid-us-ī (cf. Skt. vidúsī, Gk. widúia,
Myc. a-ra-ru-ja), pl. nom. weid-wos-es, gen. weid-us-om, etc.
NOTE. Cf. for the zero-grade further afield Toch. B. acc. lt-wes, fem. lt-usa, and Lith. fem.
áug-us-i ‘having grown’. For tentative reconstructions of ‘original’ PIH ablaut-accent nom.
*wéid-wos or *wíd-wos, acc. *weid-wós- or *wid-wós, gen. *wid-ús-, etc. cf. Beekes (1995),
Sihler (1995), Fortson (2004).

5.3. ADJECTIVE SPECIALISATION

5.3.1. Adjectives could be formed by the addition of suffixes to roots or word-
stems. Most adjectives so formed are o-stems.
5.3.2. Common adjectival suffixes for nouns and verbs are (Fortson 2004):
The all-purpose adjectival suffix -jo- and -ijo-, also used as a compositional suffix
(cf. Lat. ēgregius), and often to form patronymics (‘son of…’), cf. Hom. Gk.
Telamṓn-ios Aías ‘Aias (Ajax) son of Telamon’, Lat. Seru-ius ‘son of a slave (seruus),
Servius’.

189
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

NOTE 1. For adjectival suffix -jo- and -ijo-, cf. Hitt. istarniya- ‘central’ (<ištarna
‘between’), Ved. dámiya- ‘domestic’, gávya- ‘pertaining to cows’, Lat. ēgregius ‘outstanding’
(<ē grege ‘out of the herd’) etc. According to one widely held view, locational adjectives like
Skt. dámiya- (from dam- ‘home’) were originally possessive derivatives formed by adding -
o- or -ó-.
NOTE 2. It is important, in these type of adjectives in -jo-, to remember the so-called
Wheeler’s law, which refers to the position of the accent in these adjectives, in which the
accent is moved to the second-to-last syllable, when the third-to-last syllable is long; cf Gk.
antíos (Skt. antyas), plēsíos, vs. agios, agrios.
The suffix -ko- is most commonly found added to nouns to indicate origin or
material composition, cf. Gaul. Are-mori-cī ‘those by the sea, Aremoricans’, Goth.
staina-hs ‘stony’. It appears frequently in extended -iko- as a suffix indicating
appurtenance, as Gk. hipp-ikós ‘having to do with horses’, Lat. bell-icus ‘pertaining
to war’.
NOTE. Related is -isko-, found in Gmc. and Bal.-Sla. to indicate affiliation or place of
origin. The suffix -ko- was apparently also used as hypocoristic or diminutive, cf. Ved. putra-
ká-, ‘little son (putrá-)’, avi-k- ‘ewe-lamb’ (avi- ‘sheep’); cf. Slavic *-ĭko- in O.C.S. ovĭ-ca
‘sheep’, otĭ-cĭ (Russ. otec) ‘father’, etc. (Meillet 1961, Fortson 2004), or Lat. forms in -ko- for
diminutives, as -cus or -culus (combined with -lo-, see below), as well as Hittite, after Shields
(Hittite neka- and the origin of the Indo-European diminutive suffix *-ko-, 1998). The older
function was possibly simply adjectival. Miller (Latin suffixal derivatives in English and
their Indo-European ancestry, 2006).
The suffix -ro- was added to the zero-grade of an adjectival root to form that root’s
free-standing adjectival form, and was usually accented; as, rudhrós, red.
The suffix -tó- forms passive verbal adjectives (v.i. §7.7), and also possessive
adjectives, as Lat. barbā-tus ‘bearded’, Eng. beard-ed, O.C.S. bogatŭ ‘wealthy’.
Stems in -nt- form adjectives (viz. in -ment-/-went-), but are mostly found
within the verbal system as present participles.
Words in -ter- are nouns, and adjectives are derived usually in -trjo- and others.
Nouns in -ti make adjectives in -tjo-, or -tiko-, usually with an ethnic meaning.
IE -lo- formations are found in a variety of adjectival functions, including ancient
hypocoristics (shorter forms of a word or given name), as well as (later) diminutives.
NOTE. Cf. Lat. porculus ‘small pig’, MHG verhel (Germ. Ferkel), Lith. paršẽlis ‘piglet’,
sūnẽlis ‘little son’, etc. or Goth. Wulfila, O.H.G. Wolfilo lit. ‘little wolf’ (according to Senn,
Krahe and Meid, Risch, etc.), while O.Ir. Túathal (personal name; cf. túath ‘tribe, people’),
cited by Jurafsky (1996) is possibly not a diminutive, Miller (2006).
The accent is sometimes used to distinguish thematic nouns from adjectives.

190
 5. Adjectives

NOTE. There are sometimes secondary processes that displace the accent from an adjective
to create a noun; cf. Gk. leukós ‘white’, léukos ‘white spot’.
5.3.3. Common adjectival suffixes from prepositions and examples include:
• In -tero: próteros, énteros, éksteros, níteros, etc.
• In -no: úpernos, Lat. supernus, éksternos, Lat. externus.
• In -jo: enjos, cf. O.Ir. inne ‘interior zone’, O.Ind. ni-já-, Goth. inna; autjos,
ántitjos, preitjos, cf. Ltv. prìe(k)ša, O.Ind. ní-tya-, Lit. į́ščios, Ltv. į́ščios
‘intestine’.
• In -qo: wiqos, diverse (cf. O.Ind. viśva-, ‘all’), niqos, inferior (cf. Gmc.
*nihuuela), proqos near/far (cf. Lat. procul/prope/proximus), seqos,
isolated (cf. Lat. secus, sequius, Corn heb, Bret. hep, O.Ir. sech; but Lat. antīqus
<*anti-h3qo-).
• In -ro: áporos, cf. O.Ind. apara-.
• In -mo: epiromo- (cf. O.Ir. iarum, Alb. i èpërm), Lat. immus, summus.

5.4. COMPARISON OF ADJECTIVES

5.4.1. In Proto-Indo-European, as in English, there are three degrees of
comparison: the positive, the comparative and the superlative.
5.4.2. The adjective in its natural or ‘positive’ state may be made comparative and
superlative by the addition of suffixes.
5.4.3. The comparative, a difference of grade between two compared values, is
generally formed by adding the primary comparative suffix -jos- to the root in e-
grade (if there was one), regardless of the grade or stem of the generic adj. Thus
from swād-ús, comp. swād-jōs, sweeter, rather than ˟swādu-jōs, or from
dḷnghos, comp. dlegh-jōs, longer, rather than ˟dḷngh-jōs; also, from kartús,
kret-jōs, harder, but from mag-nos (no-stem) mag-jōs, bigger (Lat. maiior),
from sen-os, sen-jōs, older (cf. Skt. san-yas, Lat. senior), etc.
NOTE. “Older (probably PIE) was -is, which is preserved in adverbs: Lat. ntr. maius
‘greater’ < *-ios, adv. magis; Goth. min ‘less’ < *minn-is, mais ‘more’ > *meh2-is (cf. E.
more).” According to Sihler (1995), “[t]he suffix *-yos- added to a root X originally meant ‘X
to a pronounced degree; very X’. This is essentially the force of the affix in InIr. Pragmatically,
of course, a statement like fruit is sweet, but honey is very sweet is equivalent to fruit is
sweet, but honey is sweeter, and that is the basis for the evolution of the paradigmatic
comparative (…).” This origin is probably behind its use as augmentative and pejorative in
some languages.
Also, the intensive/comparative was added directly to the root (in full grade) rather than to
the stem of the adjective, in accordance with the “view that the original meaning of the suffix

191
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

was different from our notion of a paradigmatic comparative, which would be a derivative of
the generic itself (as is clearly the case in NE damnedest and L difficilior). Thus Vedic
átavyas-, a form with both the intensive suffix and the privative prefix, means ‘not very
strong’ (from tavyás- ‘very strong’) rather than ‘very unstrong; very weak’. That is, it is a
privative based on an intensive, not the other way around like the NE comparative untidier.”
Cf. O.Ir. sír, cp. sía<*sējós, ‘longus, longior’; lán (plēnus cf. lín ‘numerus’), cp. lia<*plējós
(Lat ploios, Gk. pléos); cf. Lat. ploirume, zero-grade Lat. maios, O.Ir. mía. So, for júwen-
we find Umb. cp. jovie<*jowjē-s, O.Ir. óac ‘iuuenis’, óa ‘iunior’; óam ‘iuuenissimus’, O.Ind.
yúva(n)- (yū́naḥ), cp. yávīyas-, sup. yáviṣṭa-ḥ.
The form -jos- varies allophonically with -ijos-, cf. new-jōs, new-ijōs, newer. According
to Meier-Brügger, “[*-ijos] replaces [*-jos] in nominative singular masculine and feminine
forms with the structure KV̄.K- and KVR.K-; whereas, according to rules of phonetics, *-jos-
is expected in forms with three or more syllables.”
The inflection of the comparative is that of the hysterodynamic inflection for s-
stems: singular nom. masc./fem. -jōs, acc. masc./fem. -josṃ, nom.-acc. neu. -jos,
gen. -jesos, dat. -jesei, loc. -jesi; plural masc./fem. -joses, acc. masc./fem. -
josṇs, nom.-acc. neut. -jōs, gen. -jesom, dat. -jesbhos, etc.
NOTE. This declension comes from an older ablauting *-´jōs, acc. m.f. *-jés-m, gen. *-is-
ós, dat. *-is-éi, loc. -jes-i, dat. pl. -is-bh´-, etc. Sihler (1995). Beekes (1995):
The suffix -(t)er-o- is the basis for the secondary comparative forms; as, from
upo, up, upon, úperos (cf. O.Ind. úpar-a-) beneath, nearer.
NOTE. The suffix -(t)ero- is the -o- adjective form of adverbs ending in -(t)ṛ and -(t)er;
as, sup, under, sup-er-, over, and sup-er-o-, found above; pro, at the front, forward, and
pró-ter-o-, toward the front, earlier. Adverbs and adjectives that were derived from them
were capable of marking relative contrast, e.g. in the case of opposites or selection from a
pair; cf. from sem-, one, sṃ-ter-o, the other of two in a unity. The original use of this suffix
was then probably to convey the idea of binary contrast to something else, rather than
intensive; as, qóteros, which (of two)?, enteros, the other (also second, v.i. §5.5.2) in
contrast to aljos, (an)other. Sihler (1995), Meier-Brügger (2003).
5.4.4. The superlative marks the highest grade among two compared values. The
same suffix (with the ablaut -is-) is the base for a common suffix -is-tos (<*-
ist(h2)o-, cf. Skt. -iṣṭha-, Gk. -istos, Goth. -ista), and -t-ṃos (cf. Skt. -tamas, Gk. -
tato-, -tamo-), and (possibly a combination of -is-tos and -t-ṃos) -is-ṃos (Ita.-
Cel. *-isamo-); as, sénistos, oldest, mágistos, biggest (Gk. megistos, Lat.
maximus<*magisamos), néwistos, newest, etc.; probably common to certain
numeral suffixes.
NOTE. As stated by Sihler (1995), “a complex of two separate elements *-ṃ- and *-mo- is
indefensible morphologically. An original PIH *-(t)mHo- solves the phonological problem,
but there is no reason otherwise to suppose the presence of a laryngeal”. This form in *-ṃmo-

192
 5. Adjectives

is also preferred by Fortson (2004) among others, while a laryngeal is preferred e.g. in Meier-
Brügger (2003). Again, the auxiliary vowel in a sequence *T-RE is the most logical
assumption (Adrados–Bernabé–Mendoza 1995-1998), hence LIE *-mo/- °mo-.
Superlative of the secondary comparative is made in -ṃo-; as, úper-ṃo-, sup-
ṃos (Lat. summus), from ṇdherós, underly, ńdh-ṃos (Lat. infimus, Skt.
ádhamas), from entós, inside, ént-ṃos, (Lat. intimus), innermost.
NOTE. While adjectival suffixes -jos-, -istos, are added to the root (in e-grade) without
extensions, -teros and -ṃos are added with the extensions.
Suffixes -jo-, -tero-, and -is-to-, had probably an original nominal meaning.
NOTE. Thus, the elongations in -jos- had a meaning; as in Latin, where iuniores (<*jun-
jos-es) and seniores (<*sen-jos-es) were used for groups of age; or those in -teros, as
*mātérterā ‘aunt on the mother’s side’, *ekwteros lit. ‘the horsy one’ (in contrast to ‘ass’),
‘mule’, Sihler (1995). Forms like *jun-jos-es were not common in PIE, although indeed
attested in different dialects.

5.5. NUMERALS

5.5.1. CLASSIFICATION OF NUMERALS

Indo-European numerals may be classified as follows:
I. Numeral adjectives:
1. Cardinal numbers, answering the question how many? as, oinos, one; dwōu,
two.
2. Ordinal numbers, adjectives derived (in most cases) from the cardinals, and
answering the question which in order? as, prāmos, first; ónteros, second.
3. Distributive numerals, answering the question how many at a time? as, semli,
one at a time; dwisni, two by two.
II. Numeral adverbs, answering the question how often? as, dwis, twice, tris,
thrice.

193
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

5.5.2. CARDINALS AND ORDINALS

1. These two series are as follows, from one to ten:
Cardinal Eng. Ordinal Eng.
1. oinos, oinā, oinom one prāmos first
2. dwōu, dwāi, dwoi two ónteros second
3. trejes, trja/trī, trísores three tritjos third
4. qétwores four qetwṛtos fourth
5. penqe five penqtos fifth
6. s(w)eks six s(w)ekstos sixth
7. septḿ seven séptṃos sevent
8. oktṓu eight óktwos eighth
9. newṇ nine neunos ninth
1 dekṃ ten dékṃtos tenth

NOTE. From root oi-, PII ai-kas (<*oi-k-os), CA ei-kos, PGk oi-wos. For prāwos
(<*prəHwos<*pṛh2-wo-), first, cf. O.Ind. pūrva-, O.C.S. prŭvŭ. For prāmos,
(<*prəHmos<*pṛh2-mo-), cf. Gk. Dor. pratos (<*prā-wo-to<*prā-mo-), Lith. pìrmas,
O.Eng. forma, or Goth. fruma (maybe also in Lat. prandēre < *prāmdo-dejom ‘first eating’);
Lat. prīmus (<*prī-isamos<*prei-isamos, Pael. prismu). All forms are probably related
through the same root as in particle pr, forth, thus originally meaning ‘foremost’ or similar.
For. fem. trja/trī<*triH, three, cf. Skt. trī, Gk. tría, Lat. tria, Umb. triia, Goth. þrija, O.Ir.
tre. It seems that weks, six, could have been the ‘original’ PIH form, to which an s- from
septḿ was added; it would have lost the -w- later (Sihler 1995).

The ordinals were formed by means of the thematic suffix -o-, which caused the
syllable before the ending to have zero-grade. The newer suffix -to- was the most
productive in Late Indo-European.
NOTE. For internal reconstruction in PIH, Late Indo-European and early dialects, see
Szemerényi (1970). For eighth, Beekes (1995) reconstructs an original short vowel
*h3kt(e)h3wó- cf. gr. ogdo(w)os, but cf. for lengthened grade Lat. octāuus <*oktōwos <*eh3-
w-. An original *dekṃt-ó- is reconstructed, later metanalysed into the attested dékṃ-to-
(Sihler 1995). The same could be said of most ordinals, apparently from earlier zero-grade
forms and accent on the ending, Sihler (1995) and Beekes (1995), but recognised as having
been replaced already in parent language; as, **tr̥jó- → *trijó- ‘third’.

194
 5. Adjectives

2. The forms from eleven to nineteen were usually formed by placing the number
and then dekṃ, ten. Hence Late Indo-European used the following system:

Cardinal Ordinal
11. sémdekṃ / oinos dekṃ sémdekṃtos / prāmos
12. dwōu dekṃ éteros dékṃtos
13. trejes dekṃ tritjos dékṃtos
14. qétwores dekṃ qetwṛtos dékṃtos
15. penqe dekṃ penqtos dékṃtos
16. s(w)eks dekṃ s(w)ekstos dékṃtos
17. septḿ dekṃ séptmos dékṃtos
18. oktṓ dekṃ óktwos dékṃtos
19. newṇ dekṃ newnos dékṃtos
NOTE. Eleven and twelve were already fossilised collocations in O.Lat. undecim
(<*oinodecem), O.Ind. áikadaśa, probably from oinom dekṃt (Sihler 1995). For a frozen
thirteen, cf. Skt. trayodaśa, Lat. trēdecim (<*trēsdecem).
Also Gmc. and BSl. apparently from *óinoliqa ‘one left’, *dwṓliqa ‘two left’, with ordinals
*óinoliqtos, *dwṓliqtos, although the exact reconstruction of these forms is problematic
(Beekes 1995).
3. The tens are normally formed with the units and suffix -dkṃta “group of ten”.

Cardinal Ordinal
20. (d)widkṃtī (d)wídkṃtṃos
30. trídkṃta trídkṃtṃos
40. qetwŕdkṃta qetwŕdkṃtṃos
50. penqédkṃta penqédkṃtṃos
60. s(w)éksdkṃta s(w)éksdkṃtṃos
70. septḿdkṃta septḿdkṃtṃos
80. oktṓdkṃta oktṓdkṃtṃos
90. néwṇdkṃta néwṇdkṃtṃos
100. (d)kṃtóm dkṃtémtṃos

NOTE. These forms are traditionally reconstructed for LIE with lengthened preceding
vowel or resonant (as a conventional writing of LIE uncertain output for *RH), based on
comparative evidence alone (e.g. Sihler 1995, Adrados–Bernabé–Mendoza 1995-1998), but
internal reconstruction might explain the development of all attested forms more elegantly
following the Leiden school (Kortlandt, Beekes, De Vaan, etc.), with the hypothesis that the
glottal stop of the d in dkṃtóm with the preceding vocalic resonant caused the development
toward outputs similar to those of *RH; i.e. -Rʔkṃta <*-HkṃtəH < *-h1kṃth2 <*-dkṃt-

195
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

(h2?). Hence our selection of writing an etymological d- to represent the old glottal stop, that
had the common effect in the attested dialects of lengthening the preceding vowel (or vocalic
resonant). The ending -, comes from neuter ending *-(e)h2, which by convention we write -
a. See e.g. at <http://eprints.ucm.es/tesis/19911996/H/3/AH3005401.pdf> Lujan’s tesis on
numerals, with a full review of the available reconstructions (Lillo, Szemerényi, Mallory),
Fortson (2004), or Kortlandt’s original article from 1983, available at
<https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/1887/1877/1/344_043.pdf>.
4. The hundreds are made as compounds of two numerals, like the tens:

Cardinal Ordinal
200. dwikṃtos dwikṃtémtṃos
300. trikṃtos trikṃtémtṃos
400. qatwṛkṃtos qatwṛkṃtémtṃos
500. penqekṃtos penqekṃtémtṃos
600. sekskṃtos sekskṃtémtṃos
700. septṃkṃtos septṃkṃtémtṃos
800. oktōkṃtos oktōkṃtémtṃos
900. newṇkṃtos newṇkṃtémtṃos
1000. sṃgheslom sṃgheslotṃos

NOTE. For n. (sṃ)gheslom, thousand, cf. Skt. n. sa-hásra-m, Av. ha-zaŋra, from PII sa-
ģhasla-m; from i-stem adjective gheslijos, -ā, -om, ‘having a thousand, thousand-fold’,
cf. Skt. sahasríya-, Gk. khīl(l)ioi< PGk khesl-ij-o- (Sihler 1995), Lat. n. mīlle, (n. pl) mīlia,
possibly from an original fem. abstract *sṃ-ih2 ghesl-i, or *sm-ih2 ghsl-ih2; for fem. *sm-ih2,
cf. Gk. mía. Both Lat. *mīl(l)i and mīlia “might be postulated as free forms within the same
synchronic structure” J. Gvozdanović (1992) against a starting point *-ij (E. Hamp, 1968).
For the ordinal, cf. Skt. sahasra-tama.
A difficult to reconstruct *tū́sṇtī<*tū́s-kṃt-ij-os? ‘fat hundred’?, is found (Mallory–Adams
2007) in Northern IE; cf. Gmc. þūsund-i, pl. þūsundjōs, Toch. tumame, Bal. tūksunt-i,
O.Prus. tūsimtons, Sla. *t�̄sǭt-j-ā.
5. The other numerals are made similar to the tens, with the units in first place; as,
oinā widkṃtī, f. twenty-one; m. qétwores tridkṃta, thirty-four.
NOTE. For the simple type oinos widkṃtī, cf. Skt. éka-viṅśati (in compounds where the
unit could be inflected); with copulatives, cf. Lat. unus et uiginti, Bret. unan-warn-ugent,
Ger. einundzwanzig, Du. eenentwintig, Fris. ienentweintich, Da. enogtyve, etc.
The normal order of composite numerals is units+tens, and there was a natural
tendency to follow a ‘units+tens+hundreds+…’, cf. Skt. ekādaśaṃ sahasram, lit.
‘one ten thousand’, one thousand and eleven. So e.g. penqe dekṃ kṃtóm, one

196
 5. Adjectives

hundred and fifteen, oinom qatwŕdkṃta septṃkṃtos, seven hundred and

forty-one.
All numbers signal the ordinal; as, prāmos widkṃtṃos, (masc). twenty-first,
tritjā trídkṃtṃā trikṃtémtṃā, (fem.) three hundred thirty-third.
6. Numerals were often inserted as prefixes of possessive compound forms, of the
type qatwṛ-pods, four-footed, quadruped. As first members, numbers 1-4 had a
special zero-grade form: sṃ-, one-; dwi-, two-, tri-, three-, and q(a)tur-
[q(a)twṛ- before consonant], four-.
NOTE. The ‘original’ zero-grade qtwṛ-, qtur-, appears usually with an inserted schwa
secundum, generally LIE [a], i.e. qatwṛ-, qatur-; also, PGk qetwṛ-, qetur-. See §2.6.6.

5.5.3. DECLENSION OF CARDINALS AND ORDINALS

Of the cardinals oinos, dwōu, trejes (and dialectally qétwores), are declinable.
a. The declension of oinos, -ā, -om has often the meaning of certain, a, single,
alone; as, oinos dinos, a certain day. Also, as a simple numeral, it agrees with a
plural noun of singular meaning. The plural occurs also in phrases like oinōs
álterōsqe, one party and the other one (the ones and the others).
The root sem-, in semos, one, refers the unity as a whole, found in adj. somós,
equal.
NOTE. Gk., Arm., Toch., show an old declension, found in frozen compounds in Late Indo-
European: masc. nom. *sems, acc. *sēm (<**sem-m) neu. nom.-acc. *sem (gen.-abl. *smós,
dat. *smei, loc. *sem(i), ins. *smē), and fem. *smja/ī (acc. *smja/īm, gen.-abl. *smjās, dat.
*smjāi, loc. *smjā(i), ins. *smjā). Beekes (1995), Ringe (2005).
c. The inflection of dwōu, two, is irregular, connected to issues concerning the
dual:

masc. fem. neu.

N.-V.-A. dwōu dwāi dwoi
GEN. dwous
DAT.-ABL. dwobhós/dwomós
LOC. dwou
INS. dwobhís/dwomís
NOTE. Apparently an older n./f. dwoi was separated into a newer Late Indo-European f.
dwāi. Also, IE ambhōu, both, from ambhí, is inflected like dwōu; for adjective
ambhojos, cf. Skt. ubháya-, O.C.S. oboji, Lith. abejì (Beekes 1995).
c. The inflection of trejes, three, is mostly a regular i-stem one:

197
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

masc. fem. neu.

NOM.-VOC. trejes trja/trī trísores
ACC. trins trjans/trīns trísores
GEN. trijm
DAT.-ABL. tribhós/trimós
LOC. trisú
INS. tribhís/trimís

NOTE. Ringe (2006) reconstructs the fem. trís(o)res as tisres, as does Luján, and its
declension is thus separated into *tisrn̥s, *tisróHom, *tisr̥mós, *tisr̥sú, *tisr̥bhí.
The inflection attested of qétwores or qetwores seems to have followed an old
accent-ablaut paradigm acc. qet-wór-ns, gen. qet-ur-m, loc. qet-wṛ-sú, etc..
NOTE. A feminine form qétes(o)res (see Ringe 2006, Luján; but *kwetu-sre- for Beekes
1995) is found in Celtic and Indo-Iranian, deemed therefore usually an old PIE formation
(although in decline, given that most old IE languages had already lost it), or an innovation
based on trís(o)res. It might have been declined as acc. qét-esr-ns, gen. qet-esr-m, loc.
qet-esr-sú, etc. (Ringe 2006). Tocharian, Italic, and Gothic show no gender distinction; all
such finds indicate either an old common LIE trend of disuse of inflection for this number,
or dialectal innovations. A neuter qetwṓr <*kwetworH is found in Greek and Balto-Slavic.
It was declined as acc. qét-wṓr, gen. qet-ur-m, loc. qet-wr-sú, etc. Sihler (1995),
Adrados–Bernabé–Mendoza (1995-1998).
d. The ordinals are adjectives of the o and ā declensions, and are regularly
declined.
6.3.2. Cardinals and ordinals have the following uses:
a. Only compound numbers have no gender or flexion; as, penqédkṃta kmtóm
m., f., n. hundred and fifty; numbers including one, two, or three have gender and
flexion; as, oinā séksdkṃta, (fem.) sixty-one, dwāi widkṃtī, (fem.) twenty-one,
trísores qetwŕdkṃta, (neu.) forty-three, oinom widkṃtī putla, (masc. acc.)
21 children.
b. The highest denomination generally stands last, the next before it, etc., and the
unit is first; as, qétwores séksdkṃta septṃkṃtom sṃgheslom, 1764.
c. LIE had no special words for million, billion, trillion, etc. They were expressed
by multiplication. From common loan million, from Lat. mille ‘one thousand’, we
could reconstruct sṃghéslijōn, million, dwighéslijōn, billion, trighéslijōn,
trillion, etc.

198
 5. Adjectives

d. A common expression in PIE is the adverbial use of the accusative singular

neuter of the ordinal; as, prāmom, firstly; ónterom, secondly, etc.
e. Fractions are expressed, as in English, by cardinals in the numerator and
ordinals in the denominator. The neuter is generally used for substantivised
ordinals, or the feminine with noun ‘part’; as, n. dwōi septṃa (or f. dwāi
septṃāi pṛtes) two-sevenths; n. trísores óktwa, three-eighths.
When the numerator is one, it is usually omitted: tritjom, one-third; qétwṛtom,
one-fourth, and so on.
NOTE. Indo-Iranian exhibits an old trend to omit the parts in which it is divided, if only
one is left; as, dwāi pṛtes, two-thirds (“two parts”), trja pṛtes, three-fourths, etc.
The compositional sēmi-, half-, is combined with ordinals to express cardinals
plus half; as, sēmi-tritjos, two and a half, lit. ‘having a half of the third (item)’.
NOTE. For IE ‘half’, cf. Lat. adj. dwismedhjos, noun dwismedhjom, ‘divided medially’;
however, proper forms meaning ‘divided in two’ are reconstructed from multiplicatives, v.i.
f. In approximatives, the old disjunctive use of numerals was made by collocations
of adjacent cardinals in ascending order, e.g. penqe seks septḿ, five, six, or seven.
A common IE penqe septḿ (for penqe septṃwe), five or seven, is also possible.
g. Time periods are made with compounds:
For years, as dwiatnjom, a period of two years, triatnjom, qaturatnjom,
sṃgheslijatnjom, millenium, etc.
For days, as dwidjówijom, a period of two days, tridjówijom,
qatwṛdjówijom.
For months, as dwimēnstris, a period of two months, bimester, trimēnstris,
trimester, qatwṛmēnstris, seksmēnstris, semester, etc.
NOTE. For month names, a compound with mēns-ri- is followed; as, septṃmēnsris,
september, oktōmēnsris, october, etc.

5.5.4. DISTRIBUTIVES
1. Distributive numerals are number words which express group membership.
They are used mainly in the sense of so many apiece or on each side, and also in
multiplications. They answer to the question how many of each? how many at a
time?
2. The oldest formations are collocations of geminated cardinals, with both
members inflected; as, semos semos, oinos oinos, each one, penqe penqe,
each five, etc.

199
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

NOTE. For this kind of distributives, cf. Gk. tri tri, O.Ind., éka- eka-, Zor. Pahl. ēk ēk, Pers.
das das, Parth. Sogd. ‘yw ‘yw, Arm. tasn tasn, Toch. A sam sam, B ṣeme ṣeme, okt okt, ñu
ñu; also in Hittite iterated groups, in place of distributives, 1-aš 1-aš, 1-an 1-an.
This is also found in nouns, cf. Lat. alteros alterom ‘each other’, O.Ind. díve díve,
‘each day’; Myc. we-te we-te ‘each year’; etc.
3. Some PIE distributives were formed with adj. suffix -(s)no-, and
abstract/collective suffix -ī; as, dwīsnī, two at a time, two each, trisnī, qátrusnī.
NOTE. For this formation e.g. dwīsnī, cf. Lat. bīnī, Gmc. *twiznaz (<*dwisnōs, cf. O.N.
tvenner, O.H.G. zwirnēn, O.Eng. twīn, Du. twijn), Russ. dvójni, Lith. dvynù, Arm. krkin,
Lyc. kbisñni. Also, it is believed that oi-no- was originally the first member of that series
(remember dialectal PGk oi-wos, PII oi-kos), meaning ‘singleness, unity’, before replacing
sem-. Distributives for higher numerals were later expressed in IE languages using a word
that meant ‘each’, as, Eng. each, Fr. chaque, Alb. kaa, Bret. cach, etc.
4. Distributives can be used to express percentage; as, for ‘twenty percent’, dekṃ
dekṃ dwōu, two for each ten, kṃtóm kṃtóm widkṃtī, twenty for each
hundred.

5.5.5. NUMERAL ADVERBS

1. The so-called numeral adverbs are a distinctive class of adverbs which

specifically answer the question qoti, how many times? how often?

2. The most common ones are formed with zero-grade and a lengthening in -s; as,
semli, once, dwis, twice, tris, thrice, and qatrus (<*kwətwṛ-s), four times.
NOTE. For NWIE semli, cf. O.Lat. semol, Umb. sumel, Goth. simble, O.H.G. simlē, O.Ir.
amal; for the expected *sṃni-, maybe Hitt. šani. PII sṃ-qŕt, from -qṛt, v.i.; PGk sṃ-
pṇqus, alone, cf. Gk. hapaks, Hitt. pa-an-ku-uš, L. cūnctus. For the rest, e.g. tris, cf. Lat.
ter, Myc. ti-ri-se-roe (<Tris-(h)ḗrōhei), Gk. tris, O.Ind. triḥ, Goth. driror, O.Ir. thrí, Luv.
tarisu, Lyc. trisu. Higher numbers are found in Lat. and maybe behind Hitt. 3-iš, 10-iš, 20-
iš, 30-iš, etc. See Sihler (1995).
3. Some old compounds are also found in -ki.
NOTE. A certain reconstruction is difficult, though; cf. Hitt. -an-ki, Gmc. zwis-ki, Gk. -ki,
Indian *-ki (cf. Sogd. -ky, Yaghnobi īki īki ‘one by one, one each’, Chorasmian -c); maybe also
in Arm. erkics. Variant Gk. -kis, Hitt. -kis are probably due to assimilation to the type dwis,
twice, twofold. For higher numbers, probably an innovation, cf. Greek numeral adverbs in -
a-kis, and Hittite in -an-ki, maybe from a common PIE *-ṇki.
4. A system of simple collocations is used, placing the cardinal number before a
noun meaning ‘time’; as, penqe qŕtewes, five times, oktṓ qŕtewes, eight times,
and so on.

200
 5. Adjectives

NOTE. For m. qṛtus, time, cf. O.Ind. -kṛtwaḥ (<*kwŕt-wn̥t-m̥, see Hollifield 1984), Bal.
*kart̃ -a-, Sla. *kortŭ, O.Ir. cruth, O.Welsh pryd. For (rare) compounds, viz. sṃ-qṛt, once,
cf. O.Ind. sa-kṛt, Av. ha-kərət; cf. also Umb. trioper ‘three times’, Osc. petiropert ‘four times’.

5.5.6. MULTIPLICATIVES

1. Multiplicatives like single, double, triple, etc. which answer the question how
many fold?, had a variety of compounds for the first numerals.
2. The oldest PIE multiplicatives found were collectives, made in -jo-, -t- and -k-;
as, óinokos, single, sole, unique, dwojós, two-fold, group of two, duad, trejós,
three-fold, triad, qetwerós, four-fold, group of four, penqstís, group of five,
dekḿts, group of ten, decade.
NOTE. For North-West common óinokos, cf. Gmc. *ainagas (cf. Goth ainahs, O.N. einga,
O.Eng. anga, O.Sax. enag, O.H.G. einac), O.C.S. inokŭ, Lat. unicus (<*oine-kos? or *oino-
ikos?); suffix -ko- is also found in O.Ind. -śáḥ, Gk. -kás, Hitt. -kaš. For PIE dwojós, trejós,
cf. Ved. tvayá-, trayá, Myc. duwojo-/dwojo-, Gk. doiós, O.H.G. zwī, g. zwīes, Lith. dvejì,
trejì, O.C.S. dĭvojĭ, trojĭ, O.Ir. trēode. For qetwerós, cf. Skt. catvarám, O.C.S. četvori, Lith.
ketverì, Lat. quaternī. Apart from -jo-, common PIE collectives are found in -t-, usually -ti-
, as penq-s-tis, group of five, fist, cf. O.Ind. paṇktí-, Av. sastí-, xsvasti-, O.C.S. pęstĭ, -tĭ,
Lith. -t-, -ti-, Gmc. funxstiz (cf. Goth. fūst), O.Ir. bissi, O.Welsh bys, but also -ts, as, dekḿ-
ts, Gk. δεκάς (dekás), Lat. *dekents>*dekients, spreading *j-ṇts as new formant, into Gk.
πεντάς (pentás), then τριάς (triás), etc. Lat. *quinquens>quinquiens, then triēns, etc; cf. e.g.
neuter plurals widkṃtī (interpreted as dual), lit. ‘a group of two decades, double decads’,
twenty, tridkṃta, ‘triple decads’, thirty, and so on.
4. Proportional or relative numerals express how many times more (or less) one
thing is than another; they are made as follows:
a. in -plós, as sṃplós, simple, dwiplós, two-fold, double, twice as much, twice
as large, triplós, three-fold, triple.
NOTE. For dwi-plos, cf. Lat. duplus, Hom. Gk. f. acc. diplḗn (<dwi-pl-m) Umbr. dupla,
Goth. twei-fls, O.H.G. zvī-fal, “doubt”, O.Ir. dīabul, maybe Av. bi-fra- ‘comparison’, Lyc. B
dwiplẽ. sṃ-plos is found in Gk. ἁ-πλός (ha-plós), Lat. simplus, tri-plos is found in Gk.
τριπλοῦς (triplous), Lat. triplus, Umb. tripler. For -plos (cf. Arm. -hal), a connection with
PIE pel-, fold, is usually assumed.
b. in -pḷks, as, dwipḷks, ‘with two folds’, duplex, tripḷks, ‘with three folds’.
NOTE. For pḷk-, also reconstructed as from root pel-, cf. Lat. -plicare, Gk. plekō <*pl-ek,
‘to fold’. For dwipḷks, cf. Lat. duplex, Gk. δίπλαξ (díplaks), Umbr. tuplak.
c. with verbal adjective -pḷtós, folded, is used to denote something divided in n
parts; as, dwipḷtós, an object folded in two.

201
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

NOTE. Cf. Gk. -plasio-<*-platio-<*pḷt-jo-s, a derivative that could express ‘belonging to

the class of objects folded in two’ (Gvozdanović, 1992); maybe also here i-stem O.Ir.
trilis<*tripḷtis? For dwipḷtós, cf. Gk. διπλάσιος (diplásios), Ger. zwifalt. A similar form is in
Gmc. *poltos ‘fold’.
d. with suffix -dhā, as dwidhā, two-fold, divided in two parts.
NOTE. cf. Skt. duví-dha, dve-dha, Gk. διχθά <*δι-θα (di-thá) and maybe also (with the
meaning ‘half’) O.N. twēdi, O.Eng. twǣde, O.H.G. zwitaran, O.Ir. dēde, Hitt. dak-ša-an.

202
 6. PRONOUNS
6.1. ABOUT THE PRONOUNS
6.1.1. Pronouns are used as nouns or as adjectives. They are divided into the
following seven classes:
1. Personal pronouns: as, egṓ, I.
2. Reflexive pronouns: as, se, himself.
3. Possessive pronouns: as, ṇserós, our.
4. Demonstrative pronouns: as, so, this, that.
5. Relative pronouns: as, jos, who.
6. Interrogative pronouns: as, qis? who?
7. Indefinite pronouns: as, qis, anyone.
6.1.2. Like adjectives, pronouns are declined for case and number and – except for
the personal and reflexive pronouns – for gender. Pronouns have a special
declension, differing from the nominal declension in several respects.

6.2. PERSONAL PRONOUNS

6.2.1. The personal pronouns of the first person are egṓ, I, wejes, we; of the
second person, tū, thou, juwes, you. The personal pronouns of the third person -
he, she, it, they - are wanting in Indo-European, an anaphoric (or even a
demonstrative) being used instead.
NOTE. Late Indo-European had no personal pronouns for the third person, like most of
the early dialects attested. For that purpose, a demonstrative was used instead; as, from ki,
id, cf. Anatolian ki, Gmc. khi-, Lat. cis-, id, Gk. ekeinos, Lith. sis, O.C.S. si, etc.
6.2.2. Since every finite verb form automatically indicates the ‘person’ of the verb,
the nominal pronoun forms are already adequately marked. Therefore, pronouns
are not generally used in verbal sentences; they might be used to mark insistence,
though: esmi, I am; egṓ esmi, me, I am.
In comparison with the orthotonic forms, often strengthened by particles, the
special enclitic forms feature the minimal word stem and may be used in multiple
cases.
NOTE. Tonic forms are fully stressed (emphatic or contrastive), while enclitic are
unstressed clitic object pronouns; these are clearly attested in Anatolian, Indo-Iranian,
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

Greek, Balto-Slavic and Tocharian. They are mostly reduced versions of the full forms, and
it is a common resource write them added to the preceding verb, cf. Hitt. -mu, O.Lith. -m(i).
6.2.3. The personal (non-reflexive) pronouns are declined as follows:
First Person

Singular eg-, me- Plural we-, no-

Orthotonic Enclitic Orthotonic Encliti
NOM. eg(h)óm, egṓ, I wejes, ṇsmés, we
ACC. mewóm, me me ṇsmé, nōns, us nos
GEN. mene, of me mo ṇseróm, of us nos
DAT. meghei, moi ṇsméi, nosbhos nos
LOC. mei ṇsmí, nosi
INS. mojo nosbhis
ABL. med ṇsméd

Second Person
Singular tu-, te- Plural ju-, we-
Orthotonic Enclitic Orthotonic Encliti
NOM. tū, tu, thou juwes, jusmés, you
ACC. tewóm, thee t(w)e jusmé, wōns, you wos
GEN. tewe; of thee t(w)o wesróm, of you wos
DAT. tebhei, tebhjo t(w)oi jusméi, wosbhos wos
LOC. t(w)ei jusmí, wosi
INS. t(w)ojo wosbhis
ABL. t(w)ed jusméd
NOTE. A comprehensive comparison of the reconstructed forms is at the end of this book:
1) For 1st P. Nom. eghóm (<*egh2-óm), emphatic from egṓ (<*eg-óh2), cf. O.Ind. ahám,
Av. azəm, Hom.Gk. εγων, Ven. ehom.
2) Enclitics moi, mei, and t(w)oi, t(w)ei, are found in genitive, dative and locative, but
they are deliberately specialised in this table.
3) 1st sg. dative is often found reconstructed as mebhi/mebhei, following the 2nd pl.
tebhei/tebhi.
4) -es endings in nom. pl., ṇsmés, (j)usmés (<*juswés?) attested in Att.-Ion. Greek and
Gothic.
5) An older ju(s)wes is probably behind the generally reconstructed nominative *jūHs?
based on Balto-Slavic (and Germanic) forms, which would therefore be a contraction of the
original form (cf. Skt. yū-yám, Gk. u-meis, Lat. uōs, Cel. s-wīs, Goth. iz-wis<*uz-wes?)

204
 6. Pronouns

6) Zero-grade forms in jus- are also found as us- (from wes-? cf. Goth. izwis<*uswes?).
7) Possibly accusatives jusmé<*jusmēn<**jusmens, and ṇsmé<*ṇsmēn<**ṇsmens.
8) Probably acc. pl. **nos-m-s→nōns and **wos-m-s→wōns.
8) Gen. nsom, wsom, is also attested.
9) Osc.-Umb., O.Ind. variant (orthotonic) series of Acc. Sg. in -m, as mēm(e), twēm,
tewem, usóm, s(w)ēm.
10) Dual forms (in *-h1) are for the 1st nom. wē, acc. tonic ṇwé, enclitic nō; for the 2nd jū,
acc. tonic ūwé, enclitic wō.
For the personal pronouns of the third person singular and plural, the anaphoric
i- is used. See §6.5 and §6.6 for more details on its use and inflection.

6.3. REFLEXIVE PRONOUNS

6.3.1. Reflexive pronouns are used in the accusative and the oblique cases to refer
to the subject of the sentence or clause in which they stand, meaning ‘(one)self’.
They do not have a nominative case, do not distinguish number, and can be used
with any of the three persons.
se, -self

ACC. se, myself, yourself, him-/her-/itself, ourselves, yourselves, themselves.

GEN. sewe, soi, of myself, yourself, him-/her-/itself, ourselves, themselves.
ABL. swed, by/from/etc. myself, yourself, him-/her-/itself, ourselves,
DAT. sebhei, soi, to myself, yourself, him-/her-/itself, ourselves, themselves..
L.-I. sei, in/with myself, yourself, him-/her-/itself, ourselves, themselves..

NOTE. Particular IE languages show an old swoi and swe, cf. Gk. Lesb. ϝε. According to
J.T. Katz precisely this swe is regarded as ancient and se as secondary. In contrast, G.E.
Dunkel connects se/soi, which he considers more ancient, with the demonstrative pronoun
so.
6.3.2. The reciprocals one another, each other, were expressed like the
distributives (v.s. §5.5.4), with the first member in the nominative, and the second
in the accusative (or other oblique case); as, aljos aljom, onjos onjom, etc.; as,
NOTE. Cf. Hitt. 1-aš 1-an ku-w-aš-ki-it ‘one killed the other continuously’, O.Ind.
anyonya-<*anyás anyám, Av. aniiō.aniia-, Chor. nywny, Gk. allālo-<*alos allon, *alloi
allous ‘one another’, Lat. aliī aliōs, alterius alterum; for oinos álterom, cf. Latin unus
alterum, Eng. one another, Ger. einander, etc. Reciprocity is one of the principal meanings
of middle voice forms, v.i. §7.1.2.

205
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

6.4. POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS

6.4.1. From the bases of the personal pronouns, the oldest possessive pronouns
were mos, mine, ṇsmós, ours, twos, thine, usmós, yours, swos, own.
NOTE. So e.g. in Gk. emós (<*h1mós), ammos, sós, ummos, hos, Av. ma-, θwa-, O.Ind. tva-
. Variants exist in tewós (as Gk. teϝós, Lat. tuus), sewós (as Gk. heϝós, Lat. suus), explained
as neologisms, but “which may well be as early as Late PIE” (Sihler 1995).
6.4.2. The common Late Indo-European possessives were formed from the same
bases with suffixes -(i)jo- in the singular, -(t)ero- in the plural; as, méwijos,
menjos, my, ṇserós, our, téwijos, thy, userós, your, séwijos.
NOTE. For such common PIE forms, similar to the genitives of the personal pronouns (v.s.
§6.2), cf. Gk. ēméteros (<ṇsmé-tero-), uméteros (<usmé-tero-), O.Lat. noster (<nos-tero-)
uoster (<wos-tero-), Goth. unsara-, (<ṇs-ero-), izwara- (<wesw-ero-?), etc. all used as
possessive pronouns; for the singular, cf. Lat. meus, O.C.S. mojĭ, Goth meina-, etc. O.Ind.
madīya-, tvadīya, etc. were formed from the ablatives mad, tvad, etc., while possessives
mamaka-, asmāka-, jusmāka-, were made from the genitives. See Szemerényi (1970),
Adrados–Bernabé–Mendoza (1995-1998), Meier-Brügger (2003).

6.4.3. Possessives are declined like adjectives of the first type, in -os, -ā, -om.
NOTE. PIE swos, séwijos, are only used as reflexives, referring generally to the subject of
the sentence. For a possessive of the third person not referring to the subject, the genitive of
the anaphoric must be used. Thus, paterṃ séwijom chenti, (s)he/it kills his [own] father;
but paterṃ esjo chenti, (s)he/it kills his [somebody (m.) else’s] father. See below §10.1.2
for more on its use.

6.5. ANAPHORIC PRONOUNS

6.5.1. Anaphora is an instance of an expression referring to another, the weak part
of the deixis. In general, an anaphoric is represented by a pro-form or some kind of
deictic. They usually don’t have adjectival use, and are only used as mere
abbreviating substitutes of the noun.
NOTE. Old anaphorics were usually substituted in modern IE languages by
demonstratives.
They are usually integrated into the pronoun system with gender; only
occasionally some of these anaphorics have been integrated into the personal
pronouns system in Indo-European languages.
6.5.2. Indo-European has a general anaphoric pronoun, is, ja/ī id, an old
demonstrative pronoun with basis on PIE root i- with ablaut ei-.

206
 6. Pronouns

NOTE. PIE root i- is also the base for common relative jo-. Demonstrative is, ja/ī, id, with
anaphoric value, “he/she/it”, in Italic (e.g. Lat. is, ea, id), Germanic (e.g. O.H.G. ir, er/iz, ez),
Baltic (e.g. Lith. jìs/jì), Greek (e.g. Cypriot ín), Indo-Iranian (e.g. Skt. ay-ám, iy-ám, i-d-ám).
6.5.3. The other demonstrative pronoun, so, sā, tod, functions as anaphoric too,
but tends to appear leading the sentence, being its origin probably the relative. They
are also used for the second term in comparisons.
NOTE. Demonstrative so, sā, tod is also widely attested in Celtic (e.g. O.Ir. -so/-d), Italic
(e.g. Lat. is-te, is-ta, is-tud), Germanic (e.g. Goth. sa, sō, þata, O.Eng. sē, sēo, þæt, O.H.G.
der, die, daz), Baltic (e.g. Lith. tàs, tà), Slavic (e.g. O.C.S. tŭ, ta, to), Alb. ai, ajo, Gk. ho, hē,
tó, Indo-Iranian (e.g. Skt. sá, s, tát), Toch B se, sā, te, Arm. ay-d, Hitt. ta. Modern IE
languages have sometimes mixed both forms to create a single system, while others maintain
the old differentiation.

6.6. DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS

6.6.1. The function of demonstrative pronouns, deixis, includes an indication of
position in relation to the person speaking. It is possible to express a maximum of
four (generally three) different degrees of distance; as, I-deixis (here, near the
speaker), thou-deixis (there, near the person addressed), that-deixis (there, without
a particular spatial reference), yonder-deixis (yonder, over there).
6.6.2. The demonstrative pronouns so, this, that, and is, this one, that one, “the
(just named)”, are used to point out or designate a person or thing for special
attention, either with nouns, as adjectives, or alone, as pronouns, and are declined
as follows:
so, sā, tod, this, that

Singular Plural
masc. neu. fem. masc. neu. fem.
NOM so(s) sā toi tāi
tod tā
ACC. tom tām tons tāns
GEN. tosjo tosjās toisom tāsom
ABL. tosmōd tosjās toibhos/toimos tābhos/tāmo
DAT. tosmōi tosjāi toibhos/toimos tābhos/tāmo
LOC. tosmi tosjāi toisu tāsu
INS. toi tosjā tōis tābhis/tāmis

NOTE. Variants are observed in the attested dialects: 1) Nom. so (before all consonants)
is also found as sos in Old Indian, Greek and Gothic (in all other circumstances), and as se

207
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

in Latin (cf. Lat. ipse). 2) Nom. sā is found as sja/sī in Germanic and Celtic. 3) Nom. Pl. tāi
is general, while sāi is restricted to some dialects, as Attic-Ionic Greek, possibly from original
fem. *tā and masc. *to (Meier-Brügger 2003). However, linguists like Beekes (1995) or
Adrados–Bernabé–Mendoza (1995-1998) reconstruct the nominative form in s- as the
original Proto-Indo-European form. 4) Forms in tes- for the feminine singular forms are
supported by findings in Germanic, mainly (Beekes 1995). 5) The instrumental singular
forms are difficult to reconstruct with the available data, but the dative is also often
reconstructed as tosmei, along with tosmōi.

is, ja, id, this one, that one

Singular Plural
masc. neu. fem. masc. neu. fem.
NOM is ja/ī ejes jās
id ī/ja
ACC. im jam/īm ins jāns
GEN. esjo esjās eisom
ABL. esmōd esjās eibhos/eimos
DAT. esmōi esjāi eibhos/eimos
LOC. esmi esjāi eisu
INS. ei esjā eibhis/eimis

NOTE. Some emphatic forms exist; as, ejóm for is, idóm for id; ijóm for ja.

6.6.2. Distance degrees in demonstratives might be classified as follows: kos, kā,

kod (also ghei-ke, ghāi-ke, ghod-ke), I-deixis, ‘this here’, oisos, oisā, oisom,
thou-deixis, ‘this there’, general so, tod, sā, that-deixis; elne, elnā, elnod,
yonder-deixis.
NOTE. While there is no definite or indefinite article in PIE, and nouns might be translated
as indefinite or definite depending on the context – as in Sanskrit or Latin –, when the
difference is crucial demonstratives are used. See §10.4.3.

6.6.3. Deictic particles which appear frequently with demonstrative pronouns

include -ke/-ko-, here; -ne-/-no-, there; -wo-, away, again.
NOTE. For PIE i-, se-, he, cf. Lat. is, O.Ind. saḥ, esaḥ, Hitt. apā, Goth. is, O.Ir. (h)í.
For -ke/-ko-, in (e)ke, ghei-(ke), this (here), cf. Hitt. kās, eda (def.), Lat. hic (<*ghe-i-
ke), Goth. hi-, sa(h), O.Ir. sin, O.C.S. sĭ, si, se, Lith. šìs, ši.
For ke-enos, cf. Gk. keĩnos (<*ke-enos), O.N. hánn, hann, ‘he’; for au-, away, again, cf.
Gk. houtos, O.Ind. a-sau, u-, Av. ava-, OCS. ovĭ…ovĭ.

208
 6. Pronouns

For se-, te-, in oi-se, is-te, ene, this (there), cf. Lat. iste, Gk. οιος (<*oihos), O.Ind. enam
(clit.).
For en-, cf. O.C.S. onĭ, Lith. anàs ‘that’.
For -ne, -no-, that, cf. Lat. ille (<*el-ne), ollus (<*ol-nos), Gk. keĩnos (<*ke-enos), Goth.
jains.
Common derivatives kei, here (loc. from ke), num-ke, now (from nū, now), or i-dhei,
there, tom-ke, then (from tom, then).
Latin (c)ibī, (c)ubī are frequently found reconstructed as PIE *ibhi, *qobhi (cf. Hitt.
kuwaapi(t), see Kloekhorst 2007), but it is not difficult to find a common origin in PIE i-
dhei, qo-dhei for similar forms attested in different IE dialects; cf. Lat. ubī, Osc. puf, O.Ind.
kuha, O.Sla. kude, etc.

6.7. INTERROGATIVE AND INDEFINITE PRONOUNS

6.7.1. INTRODUCTION

1. There are two forms of the interrogative-indefinite pronoun in Proto-Indo-

European, and each one corresponded to a different class: qi- (with ablaut qei-) to
the substantive, and qo- to the adjective pronouns.

SUBSTANTIVE ADJECTIVE
qis bhéreti? who carries? qos wīrós bhéreti? what man carries?
qid widḗjesi? what do you see? qom autom widḗjesi? which car do you see?

NOTE. In the origin, qi-/qo- was possibly a noun which meant ‘the unknown’, and its
interrogative/indefinite sense depended on the individual sentences. Later both became
pronouns with gender, thus functioning as (orthotonic) interrogatives or (enclitic)
indefinites (Szemerényi, 1970). The form qi- is probably the original independent form
(compare the degree of specialisation of qo-, further extended in IE dialects), for which qo-
could have been originally the o-grade form (Beekes 1995, Adrados–Bernabé–Mendoza
1995-1998).

The substantive interrogative pronoun in PIE was qi-, whereas qo- was used to fill
adjectival functions (Meier-Brügger 2003, Sihler 1995). Some IE dialects have chosen the o-
stem only, as Germanic, while some others have mixed them together in a single paradigm,
as Indo-Iranian, Balto-Slavic or Italic. Cf. Sktr. kaḥ, Av. ko, Gk. tis, Lat. qui, quae, quod; quis,
quid, Osc. pisi, Umb. púí, svepis, O.Pers. čiy, Pers. ki, Phryg. kos, Toch. kus/kŭse, Arm. ov,
inč’, Gmc. *khwo- (cf. Goth. hwas, O.N. hverr, O.S. hwe, O.E. hwā, Dan. hvo, O.Fris. hwa,
O.H.G. hwër), Lith. kas, Ltv. kas, O.C.S. kuto, Rus. kto, Pol. kto, O.Ir. ce, cid, Welsh pwy,

209
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

Alb. kush, Kam. kâča; in Anatolian, compare Hitt. kuiš, Luw. kui-, Lyd. qi-, Lyc. tike, and
Carian kuo.

2. The substantive interrogative pronoun qis? who? qid? what?, declined like i-:

Singular Plural
m. f. n. m. f. n.
NOM. qis qejes
qid qī/qja
ACC. qim qins
GEN. qesjo qeisom
ABL. qesmōd qeibhos/qeimos
DAT. qesmei qeibhos/qeimos
LOC. qesmi qeisu
INS. qī qeibhis/qeimis

NOTE. PIE -qe, and, is probably derived from the same root, and was originally a modal
adverb meaning ‘as, like’; e.g. patḗr mātērqe, father like mother (Szemerényi 1970).
Similarly, jo- is probably behind Hitt. -ya.

3. The adjective interrogative pronoun, qos? qā? who (of them)?, qod? what
kind of? what one?, is declined throughout like the relative:

Singular Plural
m. f. n. m. f. n.
NOM. qos qā(i) qoi qās
qod qā
ACC. qom qām qons qāns
GEN. qosjo qoisom
ABL. qosmōd qoibhos/qoimos
DAT. qosmōi qoibhos/qoimos
LOC. qosmi qoisu
INS. qoi qoibhis/qoimis
NOTE. Italic had a dat.-abl. *kwois < kwōis (de Vaan, p. 508). Apart from the instrumental
in -ei, parallel to instrumental *kwiH1 , an instrumental in -iH1 is proposed (de Vaan, página
522).

210
 6. Pronouns

4. The indefinite pronouns qi-/qo-, any one, any, are declined like the
corresponding interrogatives.

SUBSTANTIVE qis, anyone; qid,

ADJECTIVE qos, qā, qod, any

5. PIE had other interrogative or relative particle, me-/mo-.

NOTE. It survived in Celtic (e.g. Bret ma, may ‘that’), Anatolian (Hit. masi ‘how much’),
and Tocharian (Toch. A mänt ‘how’). For more on this question, see the article
<http://www.indogermanistik.uni-
muenchen.de/downloads/publikationen/publ_hackstein/discoursesyntax.pdf>.

6.7.2. COMPOUNDS
1. The pronouns qi- and qo- appear in different combinations:
a. The forms can be repeated, as in substantive qisqis, anyone, qidqid, anything,
or adjective qāqos, qāqā, qāqod, whoever.
NOTE. For this use, similar to the distributive ones, e.g. qāqos, whoever, cf. Gaul. papon,
O.Ir. cāch, O.C.S. kakй, Lith. kók(i)s, and also Gk. εκατερος, εκαστος, O.Ind. pratieka, Hitt.
kuissa, Goth. ainhvaþaruh; for qisqis, anyone, cf. Gk. τις, οστις, O.Ind. kim kid, kacit,
kaścana, kopi, Hitt. kuis kuis, kuis-as kuis, Lat. quisquis, quīlĭbĕt, quīvis, Goth. hvazuh,
hvarjizuh, Arm. in-č.
Other common PIE forms include solwos, all, cf. Gk. ολοι, O.Ind. visva, sarva, Hitt.
hūmant-, O.Ir. u(i)le; enis, certain, cf. Gk. ἔνιοι, O.Ind. ekaścana Lat. quīdam; álteros,
ónteros, the other, from aljos, onjos, some other, etc.
b. In some forms the copulative conjunction -qe is added to form new pronouns,
usually universals; as, qiskomqe, qisimmoqe, whoever. Indefinites itaqe, and
also, toqe, also, joqe, and.
NOTE. Cf. Gk. τις αν, τις εαν, O.Ind. yaḥ kaś cit, yo yaḥ, yadanga, Hitt. kuis imma, kuis
imma kuis, kuis-as imma (kuis), Lat. quiscumque, Goth. sahvazuh saei, Ger. wer auch
immer, O.Ir. cibé duine, Russ. кто бы ни;
c. Some forms are made with prefixes, like (substantive) edqis, some(one) among
many, edqid, something, (adjective) edqos, edqā, edqod, whether, some. Other
forms with suffixes; as, qéjespejoi, some.
NOTE. For (ed)qis, cf. Gk. τις, O.Ind. anyatama, Hitt. kuis ki, Lat. ecquis, quis, aliquis,
Goth. hvashun, Russ. edvá, O.Ir. nech, duine. For qéjespejoi cf. Gk. οιτινες, O.Ind.
katipaya, Hitt. kuis ki, Russ. несколько.
d. The negatives are usually composed with negation particles, usually ne; as,
neqis, nobody, neqid, nothing, neqom, never; but neqos, someone.

211
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

NOTE. For neqis, nobody, no one, cf. Gk. ουδεις, O.Ind. na kaḥ, Hitt. UL kuiski, Goth. (ni)
hvashun, Gaul. nepon, O.Ir. ní aon duine, Lat. nec quisquam, Russ. никто.
e. It is also found as in compound with relative jo-; as, jos qis, anyone, jod qid,
anything, cf. Gk. hóstis hótti, Skt. yás cit, yác cit.
f. With identity or oppositive forms; as, qidpe, indeed, aljodhei, elsewhere.
2. There are compounds with numerals; as, ghei-sem, exactly so, in this one way.
NOTE. Cf. Hitt. ki-ššan ‘thus, in the following way’, from ghei-sem, ‘in this one way,
exactly so’, also found in eni-ššan ‘thus, in the manner mentioned’, apeni-ššan ‘thus, in that
way’, etc. For ne-oinom, ‘no one’, none, not any, cf. Eng. none, Ger. nein, maybe Lat. nōn.
Also, Latin nūllus (<ne-oinolos, ‘not any’), none, null.
3. Reflexives are found in jota sei, alike, nearly, sweike, thus, swāi, so, etc.

6.7.3. CORRELATIVES

1. Many pronouns, pronominal adjectives and adverbs have corresponding

demonstrative, relative, and interrogative-indefinite forms in Indo-European. Such
parallel forms are called correlatives, and some common forms are the following:

Demonstrative Relative in jo- Interrogative

so, sā, tod jos, jā, jod qis? qid?, qos? qā? qod?
this, that who, which who?, what? which?
ita jota qota?
so so how?
tālis jālis qālis?
so constituted as of what sort?
tām jām qām?
that way which way how, in what way?
tom, tod jom qom? qod?
then when when?
idhei, tor jodhei qor? qodhei?
here, there where where?
ti ji qi? qote?
thither whither whither?
totrōd jomde qomde? qotrōd?
from there wherefrom from which?
totjos jotjos qotjos?
so many as many how many?

212
 6. Pronouns

toti joti qoti?

so often as often how often?
twṇts jwṇts qwṇts?
so much/large as much/large how much/large?
to(s)jo josjo qosjo?
of whom/which whose pertaining to whom/what?
íteros jóteros qóteros?
(an)other which (of two) which (of two)?
tori jori qori?
therefore wherefore why?

NOTE. Relative forms in italics are inferred following the general paradigm, because its
reconstruction is missing with the available comparative data. The rest of them are
reconstructed in Mallory–Adams (2007), Szemerényi (1996), Sihler (1995), among others.
For pronoun jāwod-, so long as, so far, cf. O.Ind jāvat, gr. ἕως < *jānts < jāwods?,
although both forms could be from jāwṇts. A pronoun tāwod-<*teh2wod- ‘so many, so
long’ is found in Gk. téōs, ‘so long, meanwhile’, Indo-Iranian (e.g. Skt. e-tvat ‘so much, so
many; so great, so far’), and Tocharian (e.g. Toch B tot ‘so much, so many; so great; so far’);
see below Conjunctions, § 8.5. For support of the jāwṇt- form, cf. tawṇt- in Lat. lātrīna
<*lawatrīna); however, Lat. tantum is reconstructed as *teH2n̥t-→tānt- (Hackstein, de
Vaan).

6.8. RELATIVE PRONOUNS

6.8.1. There are two general pronominal stems used as relative pronouns, one
related to the anaphorics (jo-), and one to the interrogative-indefinites (qi-/qo-).
NOTE. The interrogative pronoun is also used as indefinite in all IE languages. In some it
is used additionally as relative, without differentiation in Anatolian, with it in Italic (e.g. Lat.
quo- opposed to quis), Tocharian, later Celtic, Germanic and Baltic; the other group,
comprising Aryan, Greek, Phrygian and Slavic kept using the PIE relative pronoun jo-
(<*Hjo-), from the anaphoric root i-; cf. Gk. hós, hē, ho, Skt. yás, yā, yad, Av. ya-, Phryg. ios,
Sla. i-že, Cel. io, Goth ja-bai, maybe Hitt. ya, Toch. A yo. Despite Szemerényi (1970), who
considers it mainly a S.LIE innovation, only Proto-Italic shows no traces of the common PIE
relative, and because of that it is generally considered lost in that branch, not an innovation
of the others.
6.8.2. PIE forms in jo- introduced appositive-explicative relative clauses, while
those in qi-/qo- introduced attributive-restrictive clauses. For more information,
see below §10.5.3.
6.8.3. IE relative pronoun jos, jā, jod, the o-stem derivative from i-, is inflected
like so, sā, tod.

213
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

6.9. OTHER PRONOUNS

6.9.1. Identity pronouns are those generally called intensifiers or emphatic
pronouns, expressions like Eng. ‘x-self’ (himself, herself, myself, oneself, etc.), Ger.
selbst, selber, Lat. ipse, Ita. stesso or Russ. sam.
Proto-Indo-European formations that function as identity pronouns stem from a
common epe, self; as, se epse, s(w)el (e)pe, -self.
NOTE. cf. Hitt. apāsila, O.Lat. sapsa, sumpse, ipse, Goth. silba, O.Ir. fessin, fadessin
(>féin), Russ. сам.
6.9.2. Oppositive pronouns are usually derived from suffix -tero-; as, qóteros?
which of two? íteros, another, álteros, the other one, próteros, first (of two).
NOTE. For qóteros, cf. Lat uter, O.Eng. hwæðer (Eng. whether), Lith kataràs, OCS
koteryjĭ, Gk. póteros, Skt. katará-; from this word is Latin neuter<neqóteros, ‘neither one
nor the other’. For sṇterí, missing, cf. Gmc. *sun-dr- (e.g. Ger. sonder), Gk ατερ (ater),
O.Ind. sanutar; from sni, apart, cf. Lat. sine ‘without’, Goth. sundrō, O.Sla. svene, O.Ir. sain
‘different’.
6.9.3. Adjectival pronouns include identity as well as oppositive pronouns; as,
somós, the same, or aljos, onjos, the other.
NOTE. Such nominal forms, properly categorised as vaguely belonging to the field of
pronuns, receive pronominal inflection. For adj. somós, equal, same, cf. Gmc. *samaz, Gk.
ὁμός, ὁμοῦ, ὁμαλός, Skt. samaḥ, Av. hama, O.C.S. самъ, O.Ir. som. The best attested
pronominal adjective is aljos, aljā, aljom, other (cf. Gk. állos, Lat. alius, Goth. aljis, O.Ir.
ail, Toch. B alyek).

214
 7. VERBS
7.1. INTRODUCTION

7.1.1. VOICE, MOOD, TENSE, PERSON, NUMBER

1. The inflection of the verb is called its conjugation.
2. Through its conjugation the verb expresses voice, mood, tense, person and
number.
3. The voices are two: active and middle (or more exactly middle-passive).
4. The moods were up to five:
a. The indicative, for plain statement of objective fact.
b. The imperative, for commands.
c. The optative, for intentions or hopes for action.
d. The subjunctive, for potentiality, possibility.
NOTE. An old injunctive is also reconstructed to account for S.LIE forms; v.i. §7.4.2.
5. The general tenses are three, viz.:
a. The present.
b. The past.
c. The future.
NOTE. The so-called future stem is generally believed to have been an innovation in post-
LIE, not spreading to some dialects before the general split of the proto-languages; however,
the distinction between a present and a future tense is common to all IE languages.
6. The aspects were up to three:
a. For continued, not completed action, the present.
b. For the state derived from the action, the perfect (or more exactly stative).
c. For completed action, the aorist.
7. There are three verbal tense-stems we will deal with in this grammar:
I. The present stem, which gives the present with primary endings and the
imperfect with secondary endings.
II. The aorist stem with secondary endings, giving the aorist (always past),
usually in zero grade, with dialectal augment.
III. The perfect stem, giving the perfect, only later specialised in present and past.
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

NOTE. From this reconstructed original PIE verbal system, a future stem was created from
some present stem formations. The aorist merged with the imperfect stem in Northwestern
dialects, and further with the perfect stem in Germanic, Italic, Celtic and Tocharian. The
aorist, meaning the completed action, is then reconstructed as a third PIE aspect, following
mainly the findings of Old Indian, Greek, and also – mixed with the imperfect and perfect
stems – Latin.

8. The persons are three: first, second, and third.

9. The numbers in the Indo-European verb are two: singular and plural, and it is
the only common class with the noun. It is marked very differently, though.
NOTE. The reconstructed dual in the verbal system seems to have been a late development,
systematised only after the LIE split in some dialects, and disappeared in others, see §3.5.

7.1.2. VOICE
1. In grammar, voice is the relationship between the action or state expressed by a
verb and its arguments.
2. When the subject is the agent or actor of the verb, the verb is said to be in the
active. When the subject is in some way affected by the verbal action, it is said to be
in the middle-passive.
NOTE. For Clackson (2007): “The middle is the voice used to denote that the subject is in
some way affected by the verbal action. Thus, for transitive verbs the active typically
represents the subject as the actor, and the middle represents the subject as the undergoer.
For intransitive verbs the middle is preferred when there is some notion of control over the
verbal action (hence the middle inflection of ‘think’ and ‘speak’), but if the verb denotes an
event or action where the participant cannot have control, the active is used (thus ‘be’, ‘vomit’
and ‘wait’).”
2. The active and middle-passive voices in Indo-European generally correspond to
the active and passive in English. The middle had these uses in LIE (Clackson 2007):
a. Personal involvement, or sense of benefaction for the subject; as, Skt. yájati
(active) ‘(s)he performs a sacrifice’ (said from the priest), and yájate ‘(s)he
performs a sacrifice’ (said of person for whose benefit the sacrifice is made).
b. Reflexivity, generally referring to an action whose object is the subject, or an
action in which the subject has an interest or a special participation; as, Greek
lówō (active), I wash, lówomar (middle), I wash myself, or wéstijetor, (s)he
dresses (him/herself), (s)he gets dressed.
c. Reciprocity; as, Hitt. appanzi (active) ‘they take’, Hittite SU-za appantat (lit.
hand take-middle) ‘they took each other by the hand’.

216
 7. Verbs

b. Passivity, usually meaning that an action is done. This is the default meaning
in Italo-Celtic and Germanic, also found in the Greek and Anatolian middle; as,
stoighōs péwontor, streets are (being) cleaned.
NOTE. According to Fortson (2004): “The middle could also express the passive voice,
which indicates that the subject is acted upon by someone else: ‘is being fought’, ‘was
washed’. A tradition of scholarship rejects positing a passive voice for PIE because there was
no separate set of passive endings. But all the daughter languages that have a separate
passive conjugation have developed it in whole or in part from the PIE middle endings, and
it seems best to regard the middle as having been, in fact, a mediopassive or middle-passive
– capable of expressing either voice depending on the context.”
3. Apart from this middle-passive voice system, the relic of an old impersonal -()r
desinence is reconstructed for LIE times.
NOTE. This desinence begins in the third person (singular or plural), according to Jasanoff
(“The r-endings of the Indo-European middle”, Sprache 23, 1977) and Szeméreny (1985),
and probably not as middle mark, as proposed by Kuryłovicz (Indogermanische Grammatik
II Akzent-Ablaut, 1968) and Bader (“Relations de structure entre les desinences d’infectum
et de perfectum en latin”, Word 24, 1968); it is indeed probably at the origin of middle-
passive primary endings in -r, though, but was apparently used as impersonal mark within
the active voice. It is the oldest reconstructed meaning of the -r ending, and it is only found
originally in the 3rd sg. and 3rd pl. (probably originally without lengthening or distinction of
singular vs. plural). The ending is reconstructed as *-()r. It is found in Italo-Celtic, Germanic
(cf. O.H.G. skritun), Tocharian, Old Indian, and possibly in Armenian. Adrados–Bernabé–
Mendoza (1995-1998).
It marked impersonality, as in Celtic impersonal verbal forms; it is similar to Eng.
‘there’ in ‘there are three books’, and equivalent to Ger. ‘es wird’ in ‘es wird
geschlafen’, or Spa. ‘se’ in ‘aquí se duerme’. It was attached directly to the present,
aorist or perfect stem. So e.g. kei sweper, one sleeps here, ‘it is slept here’, edjēu
wṛgjer, today one works, ‘it is worked today’.
4. Some verbs are only active; as, esmi, be, edmi, eat, or dōmi, give.
5. Many verbs are middle-passive in form, but active or reflexive in meaning.
These are called deponents in Latin; as, gnāskōr, be born, keimōr, lie, lay;
séqomar, follow, etc.

7.1.3. MOODS
1. The mood in which a verb appears expresses the speaker’s attitude or stance
taken towards the action – whether (s)he is asserting that it is factual, or indicating

217
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

a wish that it were or were not true, or reporting the action second-hand, or
indicating a contrafactual condition (Fortson 2004).
NOTE. While the oldest PIE had possibly only indicative and imperative, a subjunctive and
an optative were common in Late Indo-European, both used in the present, perfect and
aorist. Not all dialects, however, developed those new formations further into a full system.
2. The indicative mood is used for most direct assertions and interrogations, with
the action described as fact.
3. The imperative is used for exhortation, entreaty, or command.
3. The subjunctive mood is used for actions described as completely theoretical,
generally with a future meaning, frequently translated by means of the auxiliaries
may, might, would, should.
c. The optative is used to express wishes, hopes, and various other non-factual
modalities.

7.1.4. ASPECT
1. Aspect is a grammatical category that refers to the type of action indicated by a
verb. Actions can be done once or repeatedly, to completion or not, or be ongoing
with neither a true beginning nor end.
2. According to the generally accepted view, the imperfect and aorist were distinct
aspectually, the imperfect expressing incomplete or ongoing action in past time
(imperfective aspect), the aorist indicating completed or punctual (one-time) action
in past time (perfective aspect).
3. The perfect or stative referred to a current state derived from the action
(resultative aspect), without a temporal reference.
NOTE. A number of archaic examples of the perfect, especially in Indo-Iranian and Greek,
refer to states in present time; so e.g. Lat. meminit ‘remembers’, Gk. mémone, Goth. man ‘is
mindful of’, ‘thinks’. Furthermore, the singular perfect endings are sued to inflect a class of
presents in Anatolian, the so-called ḫi-conjugation. These facts together have led researchers
to believe that the PIE perfect was a stative. In the dialects attested, however, except for relic
forms like these, perfect forms express past tense; to explain this development, it is usually
said that the PIE stative perfect had (or optionally had) resultative overtones (‘is in a state
resulting from having done X’, therefore ‘has done X’). Fortson (2004).
The Late Indo-European aspectual system might be so depicted, using a amore exact vs.
the traditional notation:

218
 7. Verbs

Process Aspect Aspect (traditional) Tense Tense (traditional)

Stative Stative Perfect system (unmarked) Perfect tense
Perfective Aorist system (unmarked) Aorist tense
Eventive Present Present tense
Imperfective Present system
Past Imperfect tense

NOTE. The terminology around the stative, perfective and imperfective aspects can be
confusing. The use of these terms in this table is based on the reconstructed meanings of the
corresponding forms in PIE and the terms used broadly in linguistics to refer to aspects with
these meanings. In traditional PIE terminology, the forms described in the above table as
stative, perfective and imperfective are known as the perfect, aorist and present systems.
The present/imperfective system in turn can be conjugated in two tenses, described here as
present and past but traditionally known as present and imperfect. The traditional terms are
based on the names of the corresponding forms in Ancient Greek (also applied to Sanskrit),
and are commonly encountered. The existence of the terms ‘perfect’ and ‘perfective’, with
quite different semantics, is especially problematic, and is a perennial source of confusion in
linguistics as a whole.

7.1.5. TENSES OF THE FINITE VERB

The tenses of the indicative have, in general, the same meaning as the
corresponding tenses in English:
a. Of continued action
I. Present: deikō, I show, I am showing, I do show
II. Imperfect: deikom, I was showing, I used to show
b. Of completed action or the state derived from the action
V. Aorist: dikóm, I showed, I had shown, I have shown
c. Of state derived from the action
IV. Perfect: doika, I am in a state derived from having shown.

7.2. FORMS OF THE VERB

7.2.1. THE VERBAL STEMS

1. The actual forms of the tenses and moods were made from tense-stems, of which
there were up to four for each verb, called (1) the present, (2) the aorist, (3) the
perfect; and also (4) future stems in post-LIE times.
NOTE. There are some characteristic forms of each stem, like the suffix -n- or -sko, which
give mostly present stems. Generally, though, forms give different stems only when opposed
to others.

219
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

2. The different stems are used in the verbal conjugation as follows:

STEMS WHERE USED

Present Present and Imperfect (active and middle-passive)
Aorist Aorist (active and middle-passive)
Perfect Perfect
Future Future
3. There are some monothematic verbs, as esmi, be, or edmi, eat – apparently
remains of the oldest PIE. And there are also some traces of recent or even
nonexistent mood oppositions. To obtain this opposition there are not only
reduplications, lengthenings and alternations, but also ablaut and accent shifts.
NOTE. Not every verb could form all three tense-stems. Quite a few did not form perfects,
for example, and derived verbs only had present stems in PIE. IEDs did usually however
innovate additional tense-stems for these verbs.
4. Most Late Indo-European verbs are built with a series of derivational suffixes
that alter the root meaning, creating denominatives and deverbatives. The first are
derived from nouns and adjectives; as, torsējō, dry, “make dry”, from ters-, dry,
or newājō, make new, from new-, new. The last are derived from verbs, as
widējō, see, from weid-, see, know.
NOTE. It is not clear whether these deverbatives – causatives, desideratives, intensives,
iteratives, etc. – are actually derivatives of older PIE roots, or are frozen remains, formed by
compounds of older PIE independent verbs added to other verbs, the ones regarded as basic.
5. Reduplication is another common resource; it consists of the repetition of the
root, either complete or abbreviated; as, sisdō, sit down, settle down, from sed-,
sit, gígnōskō, know, from gnō-, mímnāskō, remember, from men-, think, etc.
6. Thematic e/o has no meaning in itself, but it helps to build different stems
opposed to athematics. Thus, It can be used to oppose a) indicative athematic to
subjunctive thematic, b) present thematic to imperfect athematic, c) active to
middle voice, etc. Sometimes accent shift helps to create a distinctive meaning, too.
7. Stems are inflected, as in the declension of nouns, with the help of vowel grade
and endings or desinences.

7.2.2. VERB-ENDINGS
1. Every form of the finite verb is made up of two parts:

I. The stem. This is the root or an extension, modification or development of it.

220
 7. Verbs

II. The ending or desinence, consisting of:

a. The signs of mood and tense.

b. The personal ending.

So e.g. the root deik-, show, lengthened as thematic present verb-stem deik-e/o-
, to show, and by the addition of the personal primary ending -ti, becomes the
meaningful déik-e-ti, he shows.
2. Verbal endings can thus define the verb stem, tense and mood. Fortson (2004):
DESINENCES WHERE USED
Primary active present indicative active, active subjunctives
Secondary active imperfect and aorist indicative active, active optatives
Primary middle-passive present indicative middle, middle subjunctives
Secondary middle-passive imperfect and aorist indicative middle, middle optatives
Perfect perfect

3. The primary series indicates present and future; sg. -mi, -si, -ti, and 3rd pl. -nti
are the most easily reconstructed LIE formations. The secondary endings indicate
past; sg. -m, -s, -t and 3rd pl. -nt. The subjunctive is marked with primary
desinences, while the optative is usually marked with secondary endings. The
imperative has ∅ or special endings.

The secondary endings are actually a negative term opposed to the primary ones.
They may be opposed to the present indicative, they may indicate indifference to
tense, and they might also be used in the present.
They can also mark the person; those above mark the first, second and third person
singular and third plural.
Also, with thematic vowels, they mark the voice: -ti active primary | -t active
secondary; -tor/-toi middle primary | -to middle secondary.
4. The augment appears in Ind.-Ira., Gk., and Arm., to mark the past tense (i.e.,
the aorist and the imperfect). It was placed before the stem, and consisted generally
of a stressed é-, which is a dialectal Graeco-Aryan feature not found in N.LIE.
ACTIVE ENDINGS
1. The characteristic active primary endings are singular -mi, -si, -ti, 3rd plural -
nti, while the secondary don’t have the final -i, i.e. sg. -m, -s, -t, 3rd pl. -nt.
NOTE. The secondary endings are believed to be older, being originally the only verbal
endings available. With the addition of a deictic -i, termed the ‘hic et nunc’ particle (Latin for

221
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

‘here and now’), the older endings became secondary, and the newer formations became the
primary endings. It may have been the same as the -i found in pronominal and adverbial
forms. Adrados–Bernabé–Mendoza (1995-1998), Fortson (2004). Compare a similar
evolution in Romance languages from Lat. habere, giving common Fr. il y a ‘there (it) is’, or
Cat. i ha ‘there is’, while the Spanish language has lost the relationship with such older Lat.
I ‘there’, viz. Spa. hay ‘there is’ (from O.Spa. ha+i), already integrated within the regular
verbal conjugation of the verb haber.
2. These desinences are used for all verbs, whether athematic or thematic; as, esti,
he is, or déiketi, he shows. However, in the 1st sg., thematics end in -ō; as, deikō.
NOTE. These endings in -ō are probably remains of an older situation, in which no ending
was necessary to mark the 1st sg. (that of the speaker), and therefore, even though a desinence
-m became general with time, the older formations prevailed, along with a newer thematic -
o-mi.
3. The thematic and athematic endings of the active voice are reconstructed as
follows:

Athematic Thematic
Primary Secondary Primary Secondary
1. -mi -m -ō -om

Sg. 2. -si -s -esi -es

3. -ti -t -eti -et
1. -mes -me -omos -omo

Pl. 2. -te -te -ete -ete

3. -ṇti -ṇt -onti -ont
NOTE. About the reconstruction of PIE active endings:
1) 1st p. pl. thematic endings -o-mo, -o-mos, are found in Italic (Lat. -mus), Celtic (O.Ir. *-
mo or *-mos), Balto-Slavic (cf. Pruss. -mai, O.C.S. -mŭ<*-mo, *-mos or *-mom), and from -
mo- or -me-, in Germanic (cf. Goth. -m) and Indo-Iranian (cf. O.Ind. -ma). Primary
Thematic ending -o-mo- does not have a clear ‘original’ PIE ending, but an -s the most
logical choice, given the contrast between primary endings -mes/-me. So in Ringe (2006).
Beekes (1995) tentatively reconstructs -o-mom-.
2) 2nd P. Pl. ending athematic -the (<*-tHé) is only found differentiated in PII, while in the
other dialects it would have evolved as a common -te.
3) Athematic desinences in *-enti, as found in Mycenaean and usually reconstructed as
proper PIE endings, weren’t probably common PIE desinences. Compare Att. Gk. -aasi (<-
ansi<-anti), or O.Ind. -ati, both remade from an original zero-grade PIE *-n̥ti. In fact,
Mycenaean shows some clearly remade examples, as Myc. e-e-esi<*esenti (cf. Ion. εων), or
ki-ti-je-si (<ktíensi).

222
 7. Verbs

MIDDLE-PASSIVE AND PERFECT ENDINGS

1. The middle-passive endings are generally those of the active voice with a
characteristic middle voice -o, in which the primary endings have an additional -i
or -r, depending on the dialects.
NOTE. In the moods, the endings attested are the same. Only dialectally were some new
endings developed to differentiate the subjunctive.
2. There were apparently two possible set of endings already in Late Indo-
European: either because the original primary -r endings were replaced by the
endings in -i, or because both came to be used with the same meaning by different
dialects at the same time, with an expansion of that use through neighbouring
contact zones. Syncretic trends led in any case to dialectal specialisation of both
marks into the known (middle, middle-passive or passive) systems attested.
NOTE. Italic, Celtic, Tocharian, and Phrygian had mediopassive primary endings in -r (cf.
Lat. -tur, O.Ir. -tha(i)r, Toch. -tär, Phryg. -tor), whilst others show -i (cf. Skt., Av. -te, Gk.,
Toch. -tai, Goth. -da); both forms coexisted in Anatolian (with -r as primary ending,
combined with -i cf. Hitt. -ta-r-i, nta-r-i), in Tocharian (with -r as primary ending, -i as
secondary), Indo-Iranian (with -r- passive forms), and afield cf. also Germanic (with remains
of forms in -r with impersonal value, cf. O.H.G. skritun).
From these finds it is thought that -r was the old ‘original’ primary middle marker (possibly
taken from the impersonal mark, v.s. §7.1.2), corresponding to the -i of the active. Both
mediopassive endings (-r and -i) coexisted already in the earliest reconstructible PIE, and -
i probably began to replace the old impersonal -r as the general middle marker already by
Late Indo-European, as the Anatolian endings -r- and Sanskrit remains of middle forms in -
ro- show. In the northern dialects -r became later specialised for the passive constructions
or disappeared. It is therefore reasonable to think that while the general trend in N.LIE was
to keep (or generalise) the middle-passive with primary endings in -r, in S.LIE the middle-
passive in -i gradually replaced the older endings. Endings in -r generalised in Phrygian and
impersonal -r in Armenian (both S.LIE dialects), and endings in -i generalised in Germanic
(a N.LIE dialect), which also shows traces of an old -r, further complicate the situation,
showing that specialisation trends – at least in a post-IED period – were not uniform.
Fortson (2004): “This *-r is now generally thought to have been the primary middle
marker, corresponding to the *-i of the active. Middles in Anatolian, Italic, Celtic, Tocharian,
and Phrygian preserve this -r, but it has been replaced by the -i of the active in Indo-Iranian,
Greek, Germanic, and Albanian”.
Clackson (2007): “The morph *-r appears therefore to have acted as the analogue to *-i in
the active endings and originally marks the ‘here and now’ of middles. This explanation,
proposed by Cowgill (1968:25-7), also accounts for the absence of *-r in Greek and Vedic

223
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

middle endings: at one stage these languages must have replaced the primary marker *-r
with *-i on the analogy of the active endings.”
Ringe (2006) also considers the hic-et-nunc particle of the mediopassive to have been *-r
rather than *-i, having been replaced by the spread of active *-i.
Beekes (1995) considers the addition of *-r or *-i to the ‘original’ (secondary) endings to be
a late development from a PIH point of view: “From this it follows that the -r was not
characteristic of the primary endings. But neither was the -i of Sanskrit and Greek the marker
of the primary ending in PIE, because the languages which generalized the -r show no trace
of the -i. That on the other hand especially the marker of the primary endings of the active
(the -i) in some languages was also used for the middle, is understandable. The conclusion is
that there was no opposition between primary and secondary (…) we shall see that the perfect
endings can be considered as secondary endings of the middle (…)”.
Adrados–Bernabé–Mendoza (1995-1998) also deem both marks *-r and *-i to have
coexisted parallel to each other as systems to mark the primary endings, as a late
development.
3. The thematic and athematic endings of the middle-passive, reconstructed from
a Northern Late Indo-European point of view, are as follows:
MIDDLE-PASSIVE AND PERFECT ENDINGS

ATHEMATIC THEMATIC
STATIVE
Primary Secondary Primary Secondary
-mar -ma -ōr -a -a

Sg. -sor -so -esor -eso -tha

-tor -to -etor -eto -e
-mesdha -medha -omesdha -omedha -mé

Pl. -(s)dhwe -dhwe -e(s)dhwe -odhwe -té

-ṇtor -ṇto -ontor -onto -(ḗ)r

NOTE. 1) The Southern Late Indo-European middle primary endings in -i are easily
reconstructed for the singular, -ai, -soi, -toi, and the 3rd plural -ntoi, even though Toch. B
(secondary endings) -tai, -te, -nte still suggest to some (Neu 1968) that the original PIE were
*-sai, *-tai, *-ntai, instead of the general opinion. Dialectal Greek forms in the singular point
to an alternative 1st sg. -oi. A full discussion of the reconstruction is found e.g. in Villanueva
Svensson’s <http://eprints.ucm.es/tesis/fll/ucm-t26697.pdf>.
Villanueva Svensson (2003), Malzahn (2010) reconstruct the 1st p. sg. in *-H2e-r / *-H2e-i
but also allowing for a form without *-e-. That would explain Latin thematic ending -ōr <*-
o-a-r <*-o-h2e-r /*-o-h2-r, hence MIE -ōr for thematics, -ar for athematics.
2) The forms of the 1st and 2nd person plural were apparently the same in both systems.
Greek, Indo-Iranian, and Anatolian dialects show middle-passive 2nd plural forms in -

224
 7. Verbs

medha (<*-medh-h2, O.Ind. -mahe, Gk. -metha, Toch. -ämtä-), -mesdha (<*-mesdh-h2, cf.
Gk. -mestha, Hitt. -wašta-), Toch. -cär (cf. Toch. -t<-dhwe), O.Ind. mahi>*-megha, and -
men, cf. Gk. -men, Hitt. -wen-i. Among others, Malzahn (2010) reconstructs a system that
includes forms -mesdha/-mosdha, -dhwer/-dhwor (and -dhwei/-dhwoi); for Noyer
in his useful article on PIE verbs (with conjugated examples),
<http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~rnoyer/courses/51/PIEVerbs.pdf>, the variants include
secondary -medha, primary -mosdha, and -dhwe, without -i/-r ending.
1st pl. *-mo(s)r, Lat. -mur, and 2nd P. Pl. Osc. -ter, Hitt. -ttumari,. In Ita.-Cel. a form *-ntro
has been related to the perfect, hence related to the ‘original’ paradigm with an 3rd p. pl.
secondary -ro, primary -ro-r?; a 3rd p.sg. -o, -or is also reconstructible.

4) The forms in -r are reconstructed according to Kortlandt (1979), Sihler (1995), Beekes
(1995), Villanueva Svensson (2003), Fortson (2004), and Clackson (2007); all of them make
a similar account of the ‘older’ paradigm, which includes the forms 3rd sg. prim. -or, sec. -o,
3rd pl. prim. -ro, sec. -ront, attested in scattered remains in Hittite, Sanskrit, Tocharian,
Sabellian, and Old Irish, what suggest that they were the ‘original’ ones, being replaced by
the common endings. The old middle-passive ending system was then apparently sg. -a-, -
tha-, -o-/-to-, pl. -ro-/-nto-, to which primary endings were attached in -i, *-so-i, *-to-i ,
*-nto-i, or in -r, *-ar, *-tar, *-or, pl. *-ro-r?/*-ntor, from older *-h2-, *-th2-, *-o, pl. *-r.
Kortland’s article distinguishes between middle transitive and intransitive, in
<https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/handle/1887/1867/344_033.pdf?sequence=
1>, an idea that has not had much echo. Also, it is unclear in the article the distinction
between thematic and athematic desinences.

These endings share similarities with the perfect ones, cf. *-h2e, *-th2e-, *-e, pl. *-mé-, *-é,
*-ḗr. About the different writing of *-th2e-, as -tha or -ta, it is not only restricted to Proto-
Indo-Iranian; cf. perf. Gk. oĩstha.

This similarity of perfect and ‘original’ middle endings is explained differently according to
the available theories on the prehistory of PIE verb (through internal reconstruction),
apparently involving complicated syncretic and innovative trends regarding the voices,
tenses and aspects. However, what seems clear from the later developments attested in the
older IE languages, is that the synchronic picture of the Late Indo-European middle and
perfect verbal ending system had to be near to the one depicted above.
DUAL ENDINGS
A complete reconstruction of the dual endings is not possible, because there is too
little and contradictory data, probably because of the late development of the verbal
dual (see above §3.5 for more on the nominal dual).
Only the active paradigm shows common endings:

225
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

Primary Secondary
1. -wes -we

Du. 2. -t(h)os -tom

3. -tes -tām

NOTE. Dual endings are found in Ind.-Ira., Gk., BSl. and Gmc., but apart from a common
3rd prim. -tom / sec. -tām in O.Ind. and Gk., there is only a general (usually incomplete)
paradigm 1st w-, 2nd & 3rd t-, with different lengthenings in *-e/-o, *-es/-os, *-ā. This table
has ben taken from Beekes (1995). Fortson (2004) reconstructs an uncertain -to- for 2nd and
3rd. Only Beekes tentatively reconstructs uncertain middle endings for the parent language.

7.2.3. THE THEMATIC VOWEL

1. Stem vowels are – as in nouns – the vowel endings of the stem, especially when
they are derivatives. They may be i, u, ā, ē (and also ō in roots). But the most
extended stem vowel is e/o (also lengthened ē/ō), called thematic vowel (see above
§2.6) which existed in PIH before the split of the Anatolian dialects, and which had
overshadowed the (older) athematic stems already by Late Indo-European. The
thematisation of stems, so to speak, relegated the athematic forms especially to the
aorist and to the perfect; many old athematics, even those in -ā- and -ē-, are usually
found extended with thematic endings -je/o-.
NOTE. The old thematics were usually remade, but there are some which resisted this
trend; as edmi, I eat, dōti, he gives, or idhi! go!
The stem vowel has sometimes a meaning, as with -ē- and -ā-, which can indicate
state. There are also some old specialisations of meanings, based on oppositions:
a. Thematic vs. athematic:
- Athematic indicative vs. thematic subjunctive. The contrary is rare.
- Thematic present vs. athematic aorist, and vice versa.
- It may also be found in the middle-active voice opposition.
b. Thematic stem with variants:
- The first person, thematic in lengthened -ō.
- Thematic o in 1st sg. & pl. and 3rd pl.; e in 2nd and 3rd sg. and 2nd pl. There are
also archaic 3rd pl. in e, as senti, they are.
c. Opposition of thematic stems. This is obtained with different vowel grades of
the root and by the accent position.

226
 7. Verbs

2. In the so-called semithematic inflection, ahematic forms alternate with

thematic ones.
NOTE. The semithematic inflection is for some an innovation of LIE, which didn’t reach
some of the dialects, while for other scholars it represents a situation in which the opposition
thematic-athematic and the accent shifts of an older PIE system had been forgotten, leaving
only some mixed remains within an already generalised LIE regular thematic verbal system.

7.3. THE CONJUGATIONS

7.3.1. Conjugation is the traditional name of a group of verbs that share a similar
conjugation pattern in a particular language, a verb class. Late Indo-European
shows regular conjugations, and all verbs may be conjugated in any person, number,
tense, mood and voice by knowing which conjugation it belongs to.
NOTE. According to Clackson (2007): “In order to explain the number of different stem
formations with the same function, Meillet supposed that in the parent language not just one
present stem was opposed to one aorist stem, but rather it was possible to form several
present and aorist stems from the same root. These stems were held to show different
‘nuances’ of aspectual meaning (or, to use the German term, Aktionsart), such as punctual,
repeated or incipient action. Each root could show a wide variety of different formations,
none of which presupposed the other. (…)
However, better knowledge of the earliest attested IE languages has led to a revision of this
view, and researchers have increasingly become aware that if two stems can be reconstructed
for PIE, one may represent an archaism and the other an innovatory replacement. Thus
athematic verbs are in general a relic class, replaced over the history of individual languages
by thematic formations. Motivation for the replacement of athematic verbs is not difficult to
find: the juxtaposition of root-final consonants and the athematic endings (mostly
consonant-initial) led to clusters which were often simplified or otherwise altered, so that
the boundary between root and desinence, or suffix and desinence, became opaque to
speakers. In some languages, paradigms still survive which exemplify the extent to which
regular phonological developments can conceal the form of the root and the suffix. (…)”
7.3.2. A reference classification of PIE verbs into conjugations is the Lexikon der
indogermanischen Verben (2001), supervised by H. Rix. It offers a conservative
approach, not including much information on the Hittite verb (and thus Anatolian),
being thus very interesting as a real approach to a living Late Indo-European verb.
NOTE. Nevertheless, it features a PIH phonetic reconstruction, and looks for the ‘original’
pre-LIE lexicon, what makes the work fit somewhere between the conventional PIH
reconstruction and the modern PIH/LIE distinction, being thus somehow inconsistent, and
at best showing a picture of a pre-LIE verbal system. It is therefore complex for a simple
grammar, and indeed not directly applicable to an IED scheme, in which some athematic
paradigms had been lost (or frozen into scarce, hence irregular examples), while newer verbs

227
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

(and remade ones) further split within the most productive classes. Nevertheless, it is no
doubt the most comprehensive work to date on the Proto-Indo-European verb.
7.3.3. The most important LIV verbal classes is as follows (Meier-Brügger 2003):

LIV STEM CLASS Examples

1a Present, athematic, amphidinamic root *gwhen-ti/*gwhn-énti
1b Present, athematic, acrodynamic root *stēu-ti/*stéw-n̥ti
1g Present, athematic, with -e- reduplication *dhé-dhoh1-ti/*dhé-dhh1-n̥ti
1h Present, athematic, with -i- reduplication *sti-stéh2-ti/*sti-sth2-énti
1i Present, thematic, with -i- reduplication *gi-gn̥h1-é-ti
1k Present, athematic, with nasal Infix *li-né-kw-ti/li-n-kw-énti
1n Present, thematic suffix -e-, e grade root *bhér-e- ti
1o Present, thematic suffix -é-, zero grade root *ghr̥h3-é- ti
1p Present, thematic suffix -ské-, zero grade root *gwm̥-ské- ti
1q Present, thematic suffix -jé-, zero grade root *gn̥h1-jé-toi
2a Aorist, athematic, root *gwem-t
2b Aorist, athematic, suffix -s- *prek-s-n̥t
2c Aorist, thematic, reduplicated *we-ukw-e-t
3a Perfect, reduplicated *gwe-gwom-/gwe-gwm-

7.3.4. We have divided the Late Indo-European verbs in two main conjugation
groups: athematic and thematic. The latter were the most productive and abundant
ones in IEDs, and often replaced the older athematics by means of derivation.
Athematic and thematic groups are, in turn, subdivided into four and eight
subgroups respectively.

A. THE THEMATIC CONJUGATION

The thematic conjugation group is formed by the following 8 subgroups:
I. Root verbs with root vowel e in the present and o in the perfect:
a. Triliteral: deikō, dikóm, doika, deiksō, show, etc.
b. Concave: teqō, teqóm, toqa/tōqa, teqsō, escape, séqomai, follow,
etc.
NOTE. For IE teqō, cf. O.Ir. téchid/táich (<e/ō).

II. Concave root verbs with non-regular perfect vocalism. Different variants
include:

228
 7. Verbs

a. labhō, lābha, take; lawō, lāwa, enjoy, slabai, slāboma, fall (Middle
Voice); aisdai, praise.
NOTE. Compare Gk. αιδομαι, O.ind. ile, Gmc. part. idja-.

b. kano, kékana/kékāna, sing.

c. legō, lēga, join, read, decide.
d. lowō, lōwa, wash.
e. rādō, rāda, shuffle, scrape, scratch.
f. rēpō, rēpa, grab, rip out.
g. rōdō, rōda, gnaw.
III. Verba vocalia, i.e., thematic --je/o-, --je/o-, -í-je/o-, -ú-je/o-:
a. amājō, love.
e. lubhējō, love, desire.
i. sāgijō, look for, search.
u. argujō reason, argue (cf. Lat. arguō, Hitt. arkuwwai).
o. Causative-iteratives in -ejo-: bhoudhejō, wake somebody up.
NOTE. Jassanoff in <http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~jasanoff/pdf/Stative%20*-e-
%20revisited.pdf> discards the PIE nature of Gk. aorists in ē.

IV. Verbs in -je/o-:

a. Triliteral: kupjō, kupóm, koupa, keupsō, demand, desire, tremble.
b. Concave: jakjō, jēka, throw.
c. Lamed-he: parjō, pepōra/péprōka, produce.
d. Reduplicated Intensives: kárkarjō, proclaim, announce (cf. Gk.
καρκαίρω, but Skt. carkarti).

V. Intensives-inchoatives in -ske/o-:
a. Of mobile suffix: swēdhskō, swēdhjóm, swēdhwa, swēdhsō, get
used to.
b. Of permanent suffix: pṛkskṓ, inquire.
VI. With nasal infix or suffix:
a. Perfect with o vocalism: jungō, jugóm, jouga, jeugsō, join.
b. Reduplicated perfect: tundō, tétouda/tútouda, strike.
c. Convex: bhrangō, bhrēga, break.

229
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

d. Nasal infix and perfect with o root: gusnō, gousa (cf. Lat. dēgūnō,
dēgustus)
e. Nasal infix and reduplicated perfect: cf. Lat. tollō, sustulii (supsi+tét-),
lift.
VII. With reduplicated present:
a. sisō, sēwa, sow.
b. gignō, gegona, gégnāka, produce.
VIII. Other thematics:
o pḷdō, pépola.
o widējō, woida, see.
o etc.
B. THE ATHEMATIC CONJUGATION
Verbs of the second or athematic conjugation group may be subdivided into:
I. Monosyllabic:
a. In consonant: esmi, be, edmi, eat, ēsmai, find oneself, be.
b. In ā (<*-h2): snāmi, swim, bhāmai, speak.
c. In ē (<*-h1): bhlēmi, cry, (s)rēmai, calculate.
d. With nasal infix: leiq- (lineqti/linqṇti), leave, kleu-
(kḷneuti/kḷnunti), hear, peu- (punāti/punānti), purify, etc.
NOTE. These verbal types appear mostly in Indo-Iranian and Hittite examples, and could
therefore be more properly included in the suffixed (BIVc) type below.
e. Others: eimi, go, etc.
II. Reduplicated:
a. (sí)stāmi, stand.
b. (dhé)dhēmi, set, place, do.
c. (jí)jēmi, throw, expel.
d. (dí)dōmi, give.
e. (bhí)bheimi, fear.
f. kkeumi/kuwóm/kékuwa, strengthen.
III. Bisyllabic:
a. wémāmi, vomit.
NOTE. These verbal types appear mostly in Indo-Iranian and Hittite examples, and could
therefore be more properly included in the suffixed (BIVc) type below.
b. bhleumi, weaken, (cf. Goth. bliggwan, “whip”).

230
 7. Verbs

NOTE. This verb might possibly be more correctly classified as bhleujō, within the verba
vocalia, type AIIIu in -u-jo- of the thematic group.
IV. Suffixed:
a. In -nā- (<*-neh2): pṛnāmi, grant, sell (cf. Gk. περνημι, O.Ir. ren(a)id,
etc.), qrnāmi, buy (cf. O.Ind. krīnāti, O.Ind. cren(a)im, gr.
πρίαμαι, etc).
b. In -nu-: ṛneumi, rise (up).
c. With nasal infix: lineqmi (linqō), bhenegmi (bhegō), amneghti
(amghō)
NOTE. For these verbs Old Indian shows zero grade root vowel and alternating suffixes.

7.4. THE FOUR STEMS

7.4.1. TENSE-STEMS AND VERB DERIVATION

1. In the earliest reconstructible PIE, secondary verbs existed probably only in the
present-tense system, and had no perfect or aorist forms – although presumably
they could be conjugated in the imperfect, since it forms part of the
imperfective/present system.
NOTE. Even some of the primary verbs were missing perfect and aorist forms, or had forms
with unpredictable meanings, and many primary verbs had multiple ways of forming some
or all of their aspects. Furthermore, evidence from Old Indian indicates that some secondary
verbs in PIE were not conjugated in the subjunctive or optative moods.
Collectively, all of this indicates that in PIH, especially early on, all of the aspects and moods
were probably part of the derivational rather than inflectional system. That is, the various
tenses, aspects and moods were originally independent lexical formations. Furthermore, a
basic constraint in the verbal system might have prevented applying a derived form to an
already-derived form (Rix 1986).
That old dynamic situation reconstructed for the PIH conjugation is similar to the system
found in Late Indo-European, where old desiderative present stems are generalised as new
future stems in a post-LIE period, without the possibility of conjugating it in the subjunctive
or optative moods, or even create participles (see below §7.4.2).
2. With verb creation we refer to the way verbs are created from nouns and other
verbs by adding suffixes and through reduplication of stems.
3. There are generally two kinds of suffixes: root and derivative; they are so
classified because they are primarily added to the roots or to derivatives of them.
Most of the PIE suffixes (like -u-, -i-, -n-, -s-, etc.) are root suffixes. The most
common derivational suffixes are studied in the following sections.

231
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

4. Reduplication is a common resource of many modern languages. It generally

serves to indicate intensity or repetition in nouns, and in the Proto-Indo-European
verb it helped create present stems (especially intensives), and more frequently it
marked the different stems, whether present, aorist or perfect.
5. Examples of the stems found for PIE verbal root leiq-, leave, include:

• Present stem nasal li-n-qe/o- (cf. Gk. limpánō, Lat. linquō, -ere, O.Ir. -
léici), and also PII athem. li-n-eq-e/o- (cf. Ved. riṇákti, Av. irinaxti)
• Aorist stem liq-é/ó- (cf. Ved. rikthās, Gk. élipon, Lat. līquī)
• Perfect stem (lé-)loiq- (cf. Ved. rireca, Gk. léloipen, Goth. laiƕ, O.Pruss.
po-lāikt, O.Lith. liekti)
• Desiderative/Future stem leiq/liq-se/o- (cf. Gk. leípsō).
• Causative-Iterative derivative present stem loiq-éje- (cf. Ved. recayati,
Lith. laicaũ, laikýti)
ACCENT-ABLAUT IN INFLECTION
Thematic stems, including subjunctives, had fixed accent on the stem.
In athematic stems, the accent usually alternated in PIE, falling on the endings in
the middle-passive and the nonsingular active, but on the preceding syllable in the
singular active.
However, s-aorists seem to have had fixed accent on the root, and it appears that
there were a few root presents that exhibited a similar pattern; and reduplicated
presents (but not perfects) seem to have had a fixed accent on the reduplicating
syllable (Ringe 2006).
NOTE. No matter what the accentual pattern was, there was normally a difference in ablaut
between the singular active and all other forms of athematic stems. The commoner attested
patterns are exemplified in the paradigms shown in §§7.8.1, 7.8.2.
Obviously, the inflection of thematic stems was simpler and easier to learn. In the
development of Northwestern dialects, nearly all presents would become thematic.

7.4.2. THE PRESENT STEM

PRESENT ROOT STEM
A pure root stem, with or without thematic vowel, can be used as a present,
opposed to the aorist and perfect. Present verbal roots may be athematic and
thematic. The athematics were, in Late Indo-European, only the remains of an older
system.

232
 7. Verbs

CLASS BIa – Monosyllabic Athematic

[LIV types 1a & 1c, Old Indian 2nd class] Monosyllabic athematic root presents
ending in consonant or resonant; their inflection is usually made:

• in the active voice sg., root vowel e and root accent.

• in the active voice pl. and middle voice, root vowel ∅ and accent on the ending.

The most common example is es-mi, to be, which has a singular in es- and plural
in s-. There are also other monosyllabic verbs, as chen-mi, to strike, ed-mi, to eat,
wek-mi, to will, etc.

NOTE. There was a general tendency within Late Indo-European to use thematic
verbs instead of the old athematic ones. “The athematic verbs have been largely
replaced by those of the thematic type” Beekes (1995).

BIe.- Other monosyllabic athematic root stems, as ei-mi, go; these follow the
same declension.

ed-, eat chen-, kill ei-, go es-, be

1. edmi chenmi eimi esmi

Sg. 2. edsi chensi eisi esiii

3. estii chenti eiti esti
1. dmes chṇmés imés smes

Pl. 2. dte chṇté ité ste

3. denti chṇenti jenti senti
i post-LIE ésti(<*etsti?)<*édti. ii please note PIE es- + -si = esi.
NOTE. In an old inflection like that of the verbal root es, i.e. sg. esmi, pl. smés, sometimes
a semithematic alternative is found. Compare the paradigm of the verb be in Latin, where
zero-grade and o vowel forms are found: s-omi (cf. Lat. sum), not es-mi; s-omos (cf. Lat.
sumus), not s-me; and s-onti (cf. Lat. sunt), not s-enti. Such inflection, not limited to Latin,
has had little success in the Indo-European verbal system, at least in the older IE languages
attested. There are, however, many examples of semithematic inflection in non-root verbs,
what could mean that an independent semithematic inflection existed in PIE, or, more likely,
that old athematic forms were remade and mixed with the newer thematic inflection
(Adrados–Bernabé–Mendoza 1995-1998).
The middle voice forms that correspond in terms of formation are treated
separately as zero grade root statives in LIV (type 1c); only two cases are certain.

233
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

CLASS BIII – Disyllabic Athematic

Disyllabic athematic root stems that make the present in full/∅ root vowel; as,
wémāmi, vomit, bhleumi, weaken.

The alternative ∅/full root vowel is generally reserved for the aorist.

CLASSES BIb & BIc – Narten Present

[LIV type 1b, Narten present] Root athematic stems with alternating long/full root
vowel and fixed root accent, acrodynamic; as, stēu-ti, 3rd pl. stéw-ṇti. They are
conjugated frequently in the middle voice.
NOTE. The so-called Narten verbs (*Hreg-, *Hed-, *genH-, *tek-, *sed-, etc) have been the
object of some controversy. Schindler presented in 1993 a document with stems that
presented lengthened grade where a grade guṇa was expected, and e-grade where we would
expect zero grade. There are two schools of thought that partially dismantle the arguments
exposed by Schindler: Kortlandt proposes an alternative reconstruction to Narten for certain
verbs of Old Indian, in his article ‘Accent and ablaut in the Vedic verb’,
<www.kortlandt.nl/publications/art188e.pdf>. Also, de Vaan considers that “the Avestan
pillar under the theory of ‘Narten’ roots has collapsed”, in his article found at
<http://leidenuniv.academia.edu/MichieldeVaan/Papers/791187/Narten_roots_from_the
_Avestan_point_of_view>, Narten roots from the Avestan Point of View (2004), something
that Ryan Paul Sandell supports in his thesis (2009). However, Nikolaev considers that de
Vaan hasn’t take into account secondary Narten phenomena, and especially the zero grade
of the suffixed stem, or with endings of the Narten forms (cf. Toch. A samantar).

CLASS AI – bhárati/tudáti
[LIV types 1n & 1o – Old Indian 6th Class] Thematic root stems with e grade and
thematic suffix -e/o- before the endings. A common example is bhér-e-ti, ‘bears’.
Thematic inflection shows two general old paradigms:
a. Root vowel e and root accent, as déiketi, (s)he/it shows.
b. Root vowel ∅ and accent on the theme vowel.
NOTE. The b-types are called tudáti-presents from a representative example in Ved. tudáti
‘beats’ < *(s)tud-é-ti, a verb that forms a common LIE nasal infix present (s)tu-né-d-. There
seems to be no certain present reconstructible for common PIE, according to Beekes (1995).
The ‘tezzi principle’ (Malzahn 2010) supports that a new present stem is created based on a
past one, the aorist; thus Hitt. tēzzi ‘says’ <*dheh1-ti < aor.*dheh1-t (cf. Lyc. tadi ‘put’ (Jasanoff
2003).
The a-type appears usually in the present, and the b-type in the aorist – pres.
déiko vs. aor. dikóm –, although apparently both could appear in both stems in
PIE. In fact, when both appear in the present stem, the a-type is usually a durative

234
 7. Verbs

– meaning an action not finished –, while b-type verbs are terminatives or punctuals
– meaning the conclusion of the action. This semantic value is not general, though,
often found only in Graeco-Aryan dialects. The a-type present stems correspond to
LIV type 1n, while the b-type present stems correspond to LIV type 1o.
NOTE. The newer inflection is, thus (in a singular/plural scheme), that of full/full vocalism
for present, ∅/∅ for aorist. The athematic root inflection in full/∅ appears to be older than
the thematic one. The thematic inflection therefore probably overshadowed the athematic
one by Late Indo-European, and there are lots of examples of coexisting formations, some of
the newer being opposed to the older in meaning.
PRESENT REDUPLICATED STEM
Depending on its formation, present stems may show either full reduplication,
sometimes maintained throughout the conjugation, or simple reduplication, which
normally consists of the initial consonant of the root followed by -i-.
Depending on its meaning, reduplication may have a general value (of iteration or
intensity), or simply opposed values in individual pairs of basic verb vs.
deverbative, helping to distinguish the verb in its different forms.
Simple reduplication is made:
• With consonant + i,
- in athematic verbs; as, bhi-bher-, carry (from bher-),
- in thematic verbs; as, gi-gnō-sko-, know (from gnō-), etc. si-sdo-, sit
down, (from zero-grade of sed-, sit),
- Some intensives have half full, half simple reduplication, as in dei-dik-,
show (from deik-).
- There are other forms with -w, -u, as in leu-luk-, shine (from leuk-, light).
- There are also some perfect stems with i.
• With consonant + e/ē, as dhe-dhē-, de-dō-, etc.
Simple reduplication in e appears mainly in the perfect, while i is characteristic of
present stems. Reduplication in e is also often found in intensives in S.LIE.

CLASS BII – Athematic in -i-/-e-

[LIV types 1g & 1h] Athematic present with -i- or -e- reduplication. Roots with long
vowel (as dhē-, stā- or dō-) are rare in present stems, usually reserved for the
aorist. The reconstructed PIH paradigm of stā- is given here for comparison.

235
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

dhē-, do dō-, give stā-, stand *steh2-, stand

1. dhédhēmi (dí)dōmi (sí)stāmi *(sí)steh2mi

Sg. 2. dhédhēsi (dí)dōsi (sí)stāsi *(sí)steh2si

3. dhédhēti (dí)dōti (sí)stāti *(sí)steh2ti
1. dhedhamés (di)damés (si)stamés *(si)sth2més

Pl. 2. dhedhaté (di)daté (si)staté *(si)steh2té

3. dhedhanti (di)danti (si)stanti *(si)sth2ṇti
NOTE. 1) Reduplication didn’t affect the different root vowel grades in inflection, and
general accent rules were followed; as, bíbherti-bibhṛmés, sístāmi-sistamés, etc.
2) Most athematic verbs are usually reconstructed with an accent-ablaut paradigm (as in
Sanskrit, or the assumed older situation in PIE), but another simple columnar accent could
have been possible, as in Greek, probably from a LIE trend to simplify the system, similarly
to the simplified nominal accent-ablaut paradigm; it could read post-LIE dhédhames,
dhédhate, dhédhanti, or dídames/dames, sístames/stames, etc.
3) Formal reduplication was optional in Late Indo-European, its generalisation being a
Graeco-Aryan feature; as, dédōmi/dídōmi vs. dōmi, gígnōskō vs. gnōskō, etc.
4) Reduplication reconstructed in -e- (cf. for dhe-dhē- Skt. dádhāti, O.Lith. desti, O.C.S.
deždǫ, Lat. re-ddo?; for dé-dō-, Skt. dádati) is also found in -i- (cf. for dhí-dhē-, Gk.
títhēmi; for dí-dō- Gk. dídōmi, Celtib. didonti). The LIV classifies Greek forms in -i- as from
an original PIE -e- assimilated to the -i- class, but there is no certainty in that assumption
for all cases, given that reduplication appears not to have been obligatory in PIE. A general
reduplication in -e- for dhē- seems to be well established for most languages, though. As
Fortson (2004) states: in many examples of the type from the daughter languages, the
reduplicating syllable has -i- rather than -e-, as in Vedic Skt. jí-gā-ti ‘he goes’ and Gk. dí-dō-
mi ‘I give’. This pattern probably spread from thematic reduplicated presents like Gk.
gígnomai ‘I become’. Or, after Beekes (1995): “It is unclear when e and when I were used.
Skt dádāmi, Gr. dídōmi ‘to give’ perhaps suggest that both forms appeared in the same
paradigm.”

CLASS AVII – Thematic in -i-

[LIV type 1i] Thematic present with -i- reduplication is clearly a secondary
development from the LIV type 1h. Common examples are gi-gnō, beget, pi-bō,
drink.

CLASS BIVd – Intensives

[LIV type 6a] Stem formations of the action type ‘intensive’, meaning “repeated
bringing about of a state of affairs”, have an (almost) complete reduplication of the
root (only an occlusive at the end of the root was not repeated); as, wer-w(e)rt-, to

236
 7. Verbs

turn, dei-dik-(sk)-, to indicate, qér-qr-, to do again and again, from qer-, cut
(off), carve.
Full reduplication, normally found in the present stem, repeats the root or at least
the group consonant/resonant+vowel+consonant/resonant. gal-gal-, talk, bher-
bher-, endure, dṛ-dr-, mṛ-mr-, whisper, murmur, etc.
Full reduplication is also that which repeats a root with
vowel+consonant/resonant; as, ul-ul-, howl (cf. Lat. ululāre).
NOTE. Examples include Greek πορφυρω, παμπαινω, γαργαιρω, μορμορω, μερμηριζω,
καγχαλαω, μαρμαιρω, δενδιλλω, λαλεω, and, in other IE dialects, Slavic glagoljo, Latin
(‘broken’ reduplication with different variants) bombico, bombio, cachinno, cacillo,
cracerro, crocito, cucullio, cucurrio, curculio, didintrio, lallo, imbubino, murmillo, palpor,
pipito, plipio, pipio, tetrinnio, tetrissito, tintinnio, titio, titubo, etc.

PRESENT CONSONANT STEM

IN -s-
A present-tense thematic suffix -(e)s- is found, for example in kleu-sō, obey, be
obedient, g-esō, carry (*h2g-es-, from *h2eg- → agō), aug-sō, grow (cf. Gk. aéksō,
Lat. augeō).
Thematic -s- also makes desideratives which are the basis of post-LIE futures, v.i.
Extended -s- stems, as -sk- and -st-, are almost all thematic.
NOTE. Thematic suffix -ste/o- has usually an expressive meaning, meaning sounds most
of the times; as, bhṛstō, burst, break (from bhresjō, shatter).

CLASS AV – In -ske/o-
[LIV type 1p].- Thematic suffix -ske/o- is added to roots in the zero-grade,
especially to monosyllabics and disyllabics, and make iterative (or inchoatives); as,
pṛk-skṓ (from prek-), ask, ask repeatedly, cṃ-skṓ, walk about (cf. cemjō,
come), gnō-skō (from gnō-), know.
It can also be added to reduplicated stems, as dí-dk-skō (from dek-), gí-gnō-
skō, and to lengthened roots, especially in ī, u, ē, ā, as krē-skō (from ker-).
NOTE. Several verbs reconstructed for PIE with this ending refer to asking or wishing.
Sometimes these deverbatives show limited general patterns, creating especially iteratives
(with repeated, habitual or background action, i.e. durative sens, cf. Hitt. walḫ-iški-zzi ‘beats
repeatedly, beats several objects’, Gk. pheúgeskon ‘they would habitually flee’), but also
inchoatives (indicating beginning or inception of an action or state, cf. Lat. rubē-sc-ere ‘to
grow red’), causatives, and even determinatives or terminatives. Apparently, the same -

237
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

ske/o- can also produce denominal duratives like medhuskō, get drunk (from medhu,
mead, intoxicating drink) or wodskō, wash (from wod-, water). (Piotr Gąsiorowski, n.d.)
This lengthening in -sk- seems to have been part of present-only stems in LIE; cf. Lat.
flōrescō/flōruī, Gk. κικλησκω/κεκληκα, and so on. Cases like LIE verb pṛkskṓ, ask, demand
(cf. O.H.G. forscōn, Ger. forschen, Lat. poscō>por(c)scō, O.Ind. pṛcch, Arm. harc’anem,
O.Ir. arcu), which appear in zero grade throughout the whole conjugation in different IE
dialects, are apparently exceptions of the PIH verbal system; supporting a common
formation of zero grade root iterative presents, compare also the form (e)ské/ó- (<h1skó),
the verb es- with ‘existential’ sense, as O.Lat. escit, “is”, Gk. ẽske, “was”, Hom. Gk. éske, Pal.
iška, etc.
Supporting the theory that -sk has a newer development than other lengthenings is e.g. the
Hittite formation duskiski(ta) (cf. O.Ind. túsyate, ‘satisfaciō’, O.Ir. inna tuai ‘silentia’), which
indicates that in Anatolian (hence possibly in Indo-Hittite as well) such an ending – unlike
the other endings shown - was still actively in formation.

CLASSES BIVb & AVI – Nasal Presents

[LIV type 1k – Old Indian class 7] Stems in -n- are said to have a nasal suffix or a
nasal infix – a morpheme placed inside another morpheme. They may be athematic
or thematic, and the most common forms are -n, and extended -neu-/-nu-, -nā-.
The so-called nasal presents are thematic and thematics with nasal infix -n-,
typically active transitives. The distribution of the ablaut grades was the same as in
root presents: full grade in the singular active, zero-grade elsewhere.
The infix was inserted into the zero-grade of the root, between its last two sounds
(generally a resonant or high vowel followed by a consonant), i.e. in CeRC- roots,
the produced the characteristic alternation CR-né-C-/CR-n-C-; as, from jug-, 3rd sg.
nasal present 3rd sg. ju-né-g-ti, he yokes, 3rd pl. ju-n-g-énti; ku-n-és-mi, kiss.
Other examples include li-ne-q-mi, becoming thematic li-n-q-ō, leave; other
thematics include pu-n-g-ō, prik, bhu-n-dh-ō, be aware. Other stems with nasal
infix became verba vocalia; as, dhre-n-g-ājō, hold; pla-n-t-ājō, plant.

CLASSES BIVc & AVI – In -neu-

[LIV type 1l – Old Indian classes 5, 8] Athematic nasal infix present -néu-/-nu-
usually enforcing the weak vocalism of the root, as in stṛ-neu-mi, becoming
thematic ster-n(u)-ō, spread, ṛ-neu-mi, set into motion, etc.
NOTE. Derivative kḷneumi is difficult to reconstruct with certainty; often interpreted as
with infix -n-, i.e. kḷ-n-eu-, it has been proposed that it is a zero-grade suffixed klu-neu-,
cf. Buddh. Skt. śrun; Av. surunaoiti; Shughni çin; O.Ir. cluinethar; Toch. A and B käln. Skt.
śr̥no-/śr̥nu- < *kluneu-/klunu- would show a loss of u analogous to the loss of i in tr̥tī́ya-
‘third’ < IE tritijo-.

238
 7. Verbs

It produced (often transitive and vaguely causative) athematic verbs that refer to
the beginning or termination of an action (the so-called inchoatives), or suggest that
something is done once (rather than repeated) (Piotr Gąsiorowski, n.d.).
A rarer variant of this pattern involves -nu-, -ne/o-, formations with stress
alternating between the full-vowel root and the inflection.
NOTE. Other forms (possibly derived from inflected -neu- and -nei-) include -nwe/o-, -
nje/o-. These formations seem to be very recent in Late Indo-European. In Greek it is
frequent the nasal suffix -an-. Others as -nwe/o-, -nje/o-, appear often, too; as Gk.
phthínuo, Goth. winnan (from *wenwan); Gk. iaíno, phaínomai (from bhā-) and O.Ind.
verbs in -nyati.

CLASS BIVa – In -nā-

[LIV type 1m – Old Indian class 9] Athematic nasal infix -nā-; as, pṛ-nā-mi,
grant, sell, qr-nā-mi, buy, dṃ-nā-mi, to subdue, etc.

IN OCCLUSIVE
Indo-European roots could be lengthened with an occlusive to give a verb stem,
either general or present-only. Such stems are usually made adding a dental -t-, -d-
, -dh- (as plek-tō, plait, from plek-, weave) or a guttural -k-, -g-, -gh- (as dha-k-
jō, do), but only rarely with labials or labiovelars. They are all thematic, and the
lengthenings are added to the root.

PRESENT VOWEL STEM

CLASS AIV – Primary je/o-Presents
[LIV types 1q & 1r – Old Indian 4th class] Some roots and derivatives (deverbatives
or denominatives) form the thematic verb stems with -je/o-, usually added to stems
ending in consonant. These are called primary je/o-presents (not to be confused
with “primary” in the meaning “non-past” of verbal endings).
NOTE. According to the LIV, it forms thematic durative verbs, conveying “a subject’s state
of being without stressing the entry of the subject into the state of being”; as kapjō, take,
seize, mṛsjō, not heed, ignore (from mors-, forget), oqjō, eye (from noun oqos, eye, cf.
oqō, see).
In these cases, the root grade is usually ∅; as, mn-jṓ, from men-, think, bhudh-
jō, wake up, from bheudh-; but the full grade is also possible, as in spek-jō, look,
lā-jō, from lā-, bark.
NOTE. Fortson (2004): “The type with zero-grade of the root and accented suffix,
characteristically used with intransitives, may have been restricted to middle inflection

239
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

originally, which would explain why in some branches (Indo-Iranian, Armenian) it came to
be used to form the passive.”
These verbs may be deverbatives – normally iteratives or causatives – or
denominatives. With an iterative-causative action type [LIV type 4b], cf. swopjō,
lull to sleep, from swep-, sleep.
They served especially to form verbs from nouns and adjectives, as, from nōmṇ,
name, nōmnjō, name (cf. Gk. onomainō, Got. namnjan), from melit, honey,
mḷitjō, take honey from the honeycomb (as Gk. blíttō), etc.
NOTE. Equivalent stems in thematic -u-e/o- are rarely found in the present, but are often
found in the past and perfect stems. Stems in -u- show then an opposed behaviour to those
in -i-, which are usually found in present stems, and rarely in past or perfect stems. In present
stems, -u- is found in roots or as a suffix, whether thematic or athematic, giving a stem that
may normally appear as the general stem of the verb. It is therefore generally either part of
the root or a stable lengthening of it (cf. gheu-/ghō-, pleu-/plō-, etc.).

CLASS AIII – Verba Vocalia

[LIV types 1q & 1r – Old Indian 4th class] The preceding vowel may be an -ā-, -ē-,
-i- or -u-, sometimes as part of the root or derivative, sometimes as part of the suffix.
Possible suffixes in -je/o- are therefore also the so-called verba vocalia, -je/o-,-
ḗje/o-, -íje/o-, and -úje/o-.
Class AIIIa – Factitives
[LIV type 7] Roots or stems in -ā- (<*-eh2-/*-h2-), added to the weak form of a root
to produce athematic or thematic stems mixed with -i-, generally indicating “the
entry of the subject into a new state of being”; as, am-ā-jō, love, sēd-ā-jō, settle
(cf. sed-ejō).
NOTE. Athematic presents in -ā- are classified in LIV as “fientive stems”, like mnā-,
become furious, from men-, hold a thought.
Some find apparently irregular formations as Lat. amō, “I love”, from an older am-je/o-
, mixed with -i-; however, they are sometimes reconstructed as from *amā-, i.e. in -ā without
ending (cf. Lat. amas, amat,...), as in Adrados–Bernabé–Mendoza (1995-1998); against it,
compare common IE formations as Umb. suboca ‘invoke’, Russ. délaiu, and so on.
Added to thematic adjectival stems it was used to form factitives, verbs meaning
‘to make something have the quality of the adjective’, especially when opposed to
statives in -ē- (cf. Hitt. maršaḫ-marše-, Lat. clarāre-clarēre, albāre-albēre,
nigrāre-nigrēre, liquāre-liquēre); as, from new-o-, new, new-ā-jō, make new,
They may also form statives or duratives. But there are also many deverbatives in
-ā- without a special value opposed to the basic verb.

240
 7. Verbs

NOTE. Stems in -ā- help create (usually athematic) subjunctives and aorists. -ā- is less
commonly used than -ē- to make iterative and stative deverbatives and denominatives.
Class AIIIe – Statives
[LIV type 8] Thematic stems in -ē-, mixed with -i-. Sometimes the -ē- is part of
the root, sometimes it is a suffix added or substituting the -e- of the stem.
NOTE. These stem formations are defined in LIV as of the “essive” action type, conveying
“a subject’s state of being…without stressing the entry of the subject into the state of being”
(see above Class AIV). Its stem ending is reconstructed as *-h1jé-, as a derivative of *-jé-,
upon the fientives with *-eh1-/-h1-.
They may form verbs of state (or statives) if added to and adjectival root thematic
in e/o, meaning ‘have the quality of the adjective’, as rudhējō, be red, albhējō, be
white, with a stative value, lubhējō, be dear, be pleasing, senējō, be old, etc.
It is also found in combination with -s- in -ē-s-, -ē-ske/o-, yielding intransitive
verbs denoting change of state (‘become X’); as, rudhēskō, turn red, senēskō, get
old (Piotr Gąsiorowski n.d.).
Class AIIIo – Causative-Iteratives
[LIV type 4a] The co-called causative-iterative stems show root in o-grade and
accented thematic suffix in -éjo-, conveying the meaning “a cause of bringing about
a state of affairs, or the repeated bringing about of a state of affairs”; as, from sed-,
sit, sodejō, cause to sit, from men-, think, monejō, remind, advise; wortejō,
cause to turn, from wert-, turn, from wes-, dress, wosejō, clothe, put on clothes,
(cf. Hitt. waššizzi, Skt. vāsáiati, Ger. wazjan, Alb. vesh), sedejō, be sitting (cf. sed-
, sit), bhoudhejō, wake somebody up (cf. bheudhō, awake), ṛghejō, incite (cf.
ṛgujō, reason, discuss), etc. And it is also used to form denominatives, as wosnejō,
buy, sell, from wesnom, sale.
It formed non-causatives, too; as, from leuk-, light, loukéjō, shine (cf. Hitt.
lukiizzi, Skt. rocáyati, Av. raočayeiti, O.Lat. lūmina lūcent).
NOTE. It is sometimes difficult to know if the original form was -éje/o- or -ḗje/o-, because
the former is apparently attested only in Anatolian, Indo-Iranian, Greek and Armenian (cf.
Arm. Gen. siroy, “love”, sirem, “I love”<*keire-jé-); Greek loses the -j- and follows (as
Latin) the rule ‘uocālis ante uocālem corripitur’, what helps metrics. However, Greek had
probably a present with long ē (as in non-liquid future and perfect). Mycenaean doesn’t help
clarify uncertain reconstructions; moreover, it is often accepted that some forms in O.Ind. -
ayati are isolated. See Appendix II – Guide to the Reader for dubious reconstructions.

241
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

DESIDERATIVES AND THE FUTURE STEM

[LIV type 5] Following the LIV, the desiderative action type conveys “the subject’s
desire or intent to bring about a state of affairs”. These stems are built with a
thematic -s- ending. cf. wéid-se/o-, ‘want to see, go to see’, hence ‘visit’, as Lat.
vīsere, Goth. gaweisōn, O.S. O.H.G. wīsōn, a deverbative from root weid-, from
which the general present stem is wid-ḗje/o-, see.
NOTE. Aorist stems in -s- are usually athematic. Sometimes the -s- marked the
subjunctive. Because of its common use in verbal inflection, deverbatives with a lengthening
in -s- aren’t generally opposed in meaning to their basic stems, and there was no general
common meaning reserved for the extended stem in -s-. Compare Lat. pressī <* pres-sai vs.
Lat. premō; Lat. tremō vs. a Gk. τρεω<*tre-sō, O.Ind. trásate ‘he is frightened’.
Some of their descendants function as futures, hence the assumption that future
formations in IEDs come from LIE desideratives/causatives. Present stems, usually
formed with extensions in -s- (and its variants), became with time a regular part of
the verbal conjugation in some dialects, whilst disappearing in others.
NOTE. It is assumed then that PIE did not have a future stem. That might seem strange,
but it is possible to express future tense without having a special formation (‘I do it
tomorrow’). Gothic, for example, is an IE language that didn’t have an especial future
formation. Nevertheless, the development of the earliest languages attested show that within
the post-LIE times a future stem must have been developed.
[LIV type 5a] Desiderative/causative stems were usually made in IEDs with root
vowel e, i.e. in full-grade, with a suffix -s-<*-(H)s-:
1. Thematic -s(j)e/o-; as, do-sjé-ti, ‘he intends/wants to give’, later ‘will give’ or
‘about to give’ (cf. Skt. dā-ṣy-mi, Lith. dúosiant-).
NOTE. A common origin of the future in -s- is found in Sanskrit, Balto-Slavic, Italic
(Sabellian), and in Celtic futures in -sje/o- (cf. O.Russ. byšęštĭ<*bhuH-sjont- ‘about to be’,
Gaul. pissíiumi ‘I will see’), and Doric Greek in -sēje/o-, -sje/o-. Cf. also Hom. Gk. kaléō
<*kal-e-sō ‘I will call’, Classical Greek and Archaic Latin in -se/o- (cf. O.Lat. faxō<*dhak-sō
‘I will make’, O.Lat. peccas-sō, from peccāre, etc. and Gk. dḗk-s-o-mai ‘I will bite’ to active
present dáknō ‘I bite’). Cf. from derk-, see, Skt. drakṣyáti ‘he shall see’, and Gk. dérksomai
‘I shall see’. Some more dialectal extensions are found appearing before the -s- endings; as,
-i-s- in Indo-Iranian and Latin, -e-s- in Greek and Osco-Umbrian.
For the future stem coming from sigmatic aorist stem, Adrados–Bernabé–Mendoza (1995-
1998): “Homeric Greek aorists dúseto, bḗseto, are exactly parallels to future dúsomai,
bḗsomai, remains of the same sigmatic thematic stem, and not remade forms as Leumann
(1952-53) and Prince (1970) proposed.”

242
 7. Verbs

2. An athematic future in -s- is found in Italic (cf. Umbr. fu-s-t ‘he will be’) and
Baltic (Lith. bùs ‘he will be’).
3. [LIV type 5b] A reduplicated desiderative with i-reduplication and a suffix *-
(h1)se-, found in Indo-Iranian and Celtic; as, wi-wṇ-sō, overpower, win, from
wen-, overpower, win; from chen-, slay, chi-chnā-se-ti<*gwi-gwn̥-h1se, wants to
slay, will slay (cf. Ved. Skt. jíghāṃsati ‘wants to slay’, O.Ir. fut. (-)géna < Cel. *gwi-
gwnā-se-ti ‘will slay’); di-dṛk-sō, want to see.
It seems that future stems originated already within a disintegrating post-LIE
community, which tended to integrate the known -s- desiderative present stem
formation paradigm into the conjugation system, so that it became possible to create
systematic futures of all verbs.
IMPERFECT AND INJUNCTIVE
The present stem was used to form the present tense and the imperfect, which –
as already said – is usually thought to have signified durative or repeated action in
the past time (was going, used to go). Formally it was usually identical to the
present stem, except that secondary endings were used instead of primary. 1st sg. -
m is the same in both thematic and athematic imperfects.
NOTE. Fortson (2004) continues: “The original type is best preserved in Anatolian, Indo-
Iranian, and Greek: for example, Hitt. (preterite) daškinun ‘I (repeatedly) took’, Vedic Skt.
ábharam ‘I was carrying’, Av. barəmz ‘I was carrymg’, and Gk. épheron ‘I was carrying’ (…)
Outside of these branches, the IE imperfect has either been completely lost, or merged with
the aorist. In those branches where the imperfect was lost, a new imperfect conjugation was
often innovated (as in Italic and Slavic), sometimes of obscure origin (as in Celtic).”

Indo-Iranian, Greek, Armenian and Phrygian attest a prefix called the augment
that was added to past-tense forms. It is reconstructible as e-; as, imperfect é-bher-
e-t ‘he was carrying’ (cf. Ved. Skt. ábharat, Gk. éphere, Arm eber), or aorist e-dhē-
‘placed’ (cf. Phrygian edaes ‘he placed’).
NOTE. The great success of that particular augment (similar to other additions, like Lat.
per- or Gmc. ga-) happened apparently later in those proto-languages. Vedic Sanskrit clearly
shows that augment was not obligatory, and for Proto-Greek, cf. Mycenaean do-ke/a-pe-do-
ke, Myc. qi-ri-ja-to, Hom. Gk. πριατο, etc. It is often shown in most PIE grammars because
(Brugmannian) tradition in IE studies has made augment seem obligatory for PIE.
According to Meier-Brügger (2003): “The PIE augment *(h1)é was quite probably an adverb
with the meaning ‘at that time’ and could be employed facultatively where indicative forms
of present and aorist stems were combined with secondary endings to produce a clear past
tense (…) The establishment of the augment as a norm in the indicative aorist, indicative
imperfect, and indicative pluperfect took place in a post-Proto-Indo-European phase. Other

243
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

IE languages such as Latin or Germanic developed their own suffixal means of indicating
past tense forms.”
The augment is in fact related to the so-called ‘injunctive mood’, defined as augmentless
past-tense forms that appear in Indo-Iranian and Ancient Greek, of obscure function, much
discussed by scholars. “Their precise function or functions are still not fully clear. In Homer,
injunctives are interchangeable with past tenses but sometimes have gnomic force (that is,
are used to express general truths). In Indo-Iranian, injunctives can indicate intent, futurity,
and some quasi-modal meanings, and were also used in commands, especially prohibitions”
(Fortson 2004).

7.4.3. THE AORIST STEM

AORIST ROOT STEM

[LIV type 2a] Monosyllabic athematic root aorists are formed by adding the
secondary endings directly to the full grade of the root in the active singular, and to
the zero-grade of the root elsewhere. They are usually opposed to presents:
• In -neu-; as, pres. kḷneumi, aor. 3rd p. sg. kleum, 3rd p. pl. klwent, hear,
or pres. qṛneumi vs. aor. qerm, make, do, etc.
• Reduplicated; as, pres. sí-stā-mi, I stand, aor. 1st sg. stā-m, I stood, 3rd pl.
sta-nt, they stood; pres. dhé-dhē-mi, I do, I put, aor. dhē-m, I did, pres.
pí(m)-plē-mi, I fill, aor. plē-m, I filled.
• In -ske/o-, -je/o-; as, pres. cṃskṓ, I walk about/come, aor. 3rd sg. cm-t,
he walked about, 3rd pl. c(e)m-ént, they walked about.
NOTE. We may divide in two schools the positions regarding the Latin preterite with
internal long vowel, of the type uēnī, lēgī; either originally from IE aorists or from perfects.
The Meiser school considers it evolved from the perfect stem (e.g. González Fernández, El
perfecto radical latino, 1981). It would then be derived from the ‘perfect of state’, i.e. uēn-
<*gwēm, prevailing over the less defined aorist stem *uen(e)-. The other school is
represented by Kortlandt, supporting that uēnī continues an original aorist stem with a long
vowel. Nikolaev mentions Meiser’s position, without discussing it, in his article
<http://scholar.harvard.edu/nikolaev/files/nikolaev_tocharian_a_samantar.pdf>. An
alternative to aorist cēmt vs. cemt would be to use as aorist for this verb the same as for
cemjō, ludhóm (<*h1ludh-).

• Thematic presents; as, pres. ghewō, I pour, aor. gheum, I poured.

Thematic aorist root stems are usually made in ∅/∅ root vowel grade, secondary
endings, and sometimes reduplication; as, pres. deik-ō, aor. dik-óm, pres. linq-
ō, I leave, aor. liq-óm, I left, pres. wid-ḗjō, aor. wid-óm; cf. also from leudh-

244
 7. Verbs

go/come, ludhóm, I went, I came, most commonly used as aorist of cemjō

(<cṃjō), I come.
NOTE. As already seen, these stems could form aorists and presents: The liqé/ó- form (i.e.
zero grade and accent on thematic vowel) is usually reserved for the aorist stem, while the
leiqe/o- form (i.e. full grade) is rarely found in the aorist – but, when it is found, the present
has to be differentiated from it. This is made (1) with vowel opposition, i.e., full grade, o-
grade or zero grade, (2) thematic vowel, or (3) with secondary phonetic differentiations (as
accent shift).

AORIST REDUPLICATED STEM

[LIV type 2c] Aorist reduplicated stems are usually thematic, with a general vowel
e (opposed to the i of the present), zero-grade root vowel (general in aorists); as,
chenmi/che-chṇ-om, murder, kill; weqmi/we-uq-om, say, speak;
NOTE. Fortson (2004): “(…) reduplicated aorists typically have causative meaning, such as
Ved. Skt. á-pī-par-as ‘you made cross over’, Gk. dé-da-e ‘he taught’ (<’caused to know’), and
Toch. A śa-śärs ‘he made known’.” Cf. also Lat. momordit, totondit, spopondit, etc., or O.Ind.
atītaram, ajījanam, etc.
In roots which begin with vowel, reduplication is of the type vowel+consonant.
Some roots which begin with vowel form also reduplicated aorists; as ag-ag-om
(as Gk. ηγαγον, where η<ā<*é+a – Wackernagel, hence *é-agagom).

AORIST CONSONANT STEM

[LIV type 2b] The most common consonant stem is the sigmatic aorist, formed
with the suffix -s-, generally athematic.

The -s- is added usually to the root, whether monosyllabic or disyllabic, in

consonant or vowel, opposed to the present. Such root aorists usually show
lengthened e-grade in the active voice, and zero grade in the rest; as, pres.
pí(m)plēmi, I fill, aor. plēsm, I filled, 3rd pl. plesṇt, they filled; qērsṃ, I made,
3rd pl. qṛsṇt, they made, from qer-, make; dēik-s-m, I indicated, wēgh-s-m, I
carried, I conveyed, etc.
NOTE. Lengthened vocalism in sigmatic aorists was probably an innovation in Late Indo-
European. For lengthened grade, cf. maybe Latin forms like dīxī (<*dēik-s-), uēxī from uehō
(cf. O.Ind. ávāk-ṣam from váhāmi ‘drive’), rēxī from regō, etc., or Toch. B preksa, A prakäs
(<*prēk-s-ā), according to Lindeman (1968). Without lengthening (i.e. full grade) they are
found in Greek and in the s-aorist middle in Indo-Iranian, cf. Gk. élekse<*é-leg-s- ‘he said’.
For Beekes (1995), the lengthened grade “perhaps it has disappeared through regular sound
developments (*dēik- → deik-, Osthoff’s Law).”

245
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

It could also be added to a vowel ā, ē, ō, with the same stem as the present, or to
the noun from which the verb is derived; as, pres. alkējō, aor. alkēsom, grow.

The general system of thematic present vs. sigmatic aorist stems may be so
depicted: -ēje/o- vs. -ēs-; -āje/o- vs. -ās-; -je/o- vs. -is-; -je/o- vs. -ās-; -je/o- vs.
ēs-; and -e/o- vs. -ās-.

Monosyllabic or disyllabic sigmatic aorist root stems in i, u, ā, ē, ō, have a fixed

vowel grade; as, aor. pewism, pewisṇt, purify.
NOTE. Aorist stem formation in -i-, -ē-, -ā- is still less common. Other common formations
in -s- include the following: In -is- (Latin and Indo-Aryan), -es- (Greek), as genis- from
gen-, beget, wersis- from wers-, rain; also, cf. Lat. amauis (amāuistī, and amāuerām<*-
wisām), etc. In -sā-, attested in Latin, Tocharian and Armenian. Also attested are aorists in
-sē-, thematic -sje/o-, etc.

Stems in -t- function usually as aorists, opposed to present stems, especially in

Italic, Celtic and Germanic.
NOTE. While the use of -t for persons in the verbal conjugation is certainly old, the use of
an extension in -t- to form verbal stems seems to be more recent, and mainly a North-West
IE development.

Stems in -k- are rare, but there are examples of them in all forms of the verb,
including aorists.

AORIST VOWEL STEM

Aorists in ā, ē, are very common, either as root stems with athematic inflection,
or mixed with other endings, e.g. -u-.
NOTE. As already said, stems extended in -u- are rarely found in present stems, but are
frequent in past stems; the opposite is true for -i-.
When opposed to a present, stems extended in -ā, -ē, are often aorists. Possible
oppositions present stem vowel vs. aorist stem vowel include:
• Present thematic in -i- vs. aorist athematic in -ē, -ā; as, mṇjō vs. mṇḗm,
consider, alkējō vs. alkm, protect.
• Present thematic in e/o vs. aorist athematic in -ē, -ā; as, legō-legēm, collect.
NOTE. The preterite in -ā, common to Tocharian, Italic, and Baltic, has been discussed by
Jasanoff, Nikolaev, Fellner, or Malzahn among others, in already mentioned works, although
the information that we have on this question remains limited.

246
 7. Verbs

The use of stems in -u- is usually related to the past, and sometimes to the perfect.
Such endings may appear as -we/o-, often -āwe/o-, -ēwe/o-: as, plēu-, from plē-
; sēu-, from sē-; gnōu-, from gnō-.
Endings -i-/-ī- are scarcely used for aorists, but they appear in some stems used
both for present and aorist stems; as, awisdhijō vs. awisdhijóm, hear, Lat. audĭo,
audĭui.

7.4.4. THE PERFECT STEM

[LIV type 3a] The perfect stem has  or lengthened root vowel and special perfect
endings, sg. -a, -tha, -e, pl. -mé, -té, -(ḗ)r, which are only used in the perfect
indicative.
In Gk. and Ind.-Ira., the stem was often reduplicated, generally with vowel e; in
Latin and Germanic, reduplication is often absent.
NOTE. Historically the perfect was possibly a different stative verb, a deverbative from the
root with certain formation rules, which eventually entered the verbal conjugation, meaning
the state derived from the action of the present stem. PIE perfect did not have a tense or voice
value.
Root vowel is usually /∅, i.e. o-grade in the singular and zero-grade in the plural;
for a contrast pres. 1st sg./ perf. 1st sg. / perf. 3rd pl., cf. gígnō / gé-gon-a / ge-gṇ-
mé, know; bhindh-ō / bhondh-a / bhṇdh-mé, bind; bheudhō / bhoudh-a /
bhudh-mé, wake up.
NOTE. 1) for different formations, cf. kan-ō / (ké)kan-a / kṇ-mé, sing, cf. O.Ir. cechan,
cechan, cechuin (and cechain), cechnammar, cechn(u)id, cechnatar.; d-ō-mi / de-d-ai,
give, cf. O.Ind. dadé, Lat. dedī. 2) For examples of root vowel ā, cf. Lat. scābī, or Gk. τεθηλα,
and for examples with root vowel a, cf. Umb. procanurent (with ablaut in Lat. procinuerint)
– this example has lost reduplication as Italic dialects usually do after a preposed preposition
(cf. Lat. compulī, detinuī), although this may not be the case (cf. Lat. concinuī).
2) There are also perfects with lengthened root vowel; as, from Latin sedē-jō, perf. sēd-a,
sit; ed-ō, perf. ēd-a, eat; cem-jō, perf. cēm-a, come; ag-ō, perf. āg-a, act; from Germanic,
sleb-ō, perf. séslēb-a, sleep; etc.

Reduplication is made in e, and sometimes in i or u.

NOTE. Apparently, in Indo-Iranian and Greek dialects reduplication was obligatory,
whereas in North-West Indo-European it wasn’t. For an older nonobligatory reduplication,
there is common PIE perfect woistha (<*woid-th2e), know, from weid-, see (hence the
stative meaning ‘state derived from having seen’?), cf. O.Ind. véttha, Gk. (w)oīstha, Goth.
waist. Cf. also afield Gk. εγνωκα, Lat. sēuī (which seems old, even with Goth. saiso), Lat. sedī,

247
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

from sedeō and sīdo, which do not let us reconstruct whether the original form is sesdāi or
sēdāi.
There could have been a hesitant pluperfect formation in PIE, which would have
been easily constructed by adding secondary athematic endings to the perfect stem.
NOTE 1. The secondary endings marked a past tense, the old perfect became then a present.
It is found reconstructed for PIE e.g. in Adrados–Bernabé–Mendoza (1995-1998), and J.T.
Katz in <http://www.princeton.edu/~pswpc/pdfs/katz/070702.pdf>. In
<https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/handle/1887/1919/344_092.pdf?sequence=1
>, Kortlandt, however, about the pluperfect in Proto-Germanic, deems the pluperfect a post-
PIE formation.
NOTE 2. The perfect middle seems to have been an early dialectal formation, too. It was
made by opposing a new perfect formation to the old one, so that the old became only active
and the newer middle. Such formations were generalized in the southern dialects, but didn’t
succeed in the northern ones. The new perfect middle stem was generally obtained with the
perfect stem in zero-grade and middle endings.
NOTE 3. A special past is found in IE dialects of Europe (i.e., the North-West IE and Greek),
the compound past, sometimes called future past, which is formed by two elements: a verbal
stem followed by a vowel (-ā, -ē, -ī, -ō), and an auxiliary verb, with the meanings be (es-),
become (bheu-), do (dhē-), or give (dō-). Although each language shows different
formations, they all share a common pattern, and therefore probably had a common origin
traceable to post-LIE, unstable at first and later systematized in the early proto-languages.
The first element of the compound is derived from a root or a stem with vowel ending, either
the present or the aorist stem - generally with lengthened grade. They are past formations
similar to the others (imperfects and aorists), but instead of receiving secondary endings,
they receive a secondary stem (like the perfect). The second element is an auxiliary verb; as,
dhē- in Greek and Germanic, bheu- in Latin and Celtic, and dō- in Balto-Slavic. Their
specific Past meaning vary according to the needs of the individual dialects (Adrados–
Bernabé–Mendoza 1995-1998).

248
 7. Verbs

7.5. MOOD STEMS

7.5.1. INDICATIVE
The indicative expresses the real action, and it is the default mood; the other ones
were specialised in opposition to it. It appears in the three verbal stems. The
following table depicts the minimal verbal stem system attested for IEDs, according
to finds from Vedic Sanskrit and Ancient Greek (Clackson 2007):

Present Aorist Perfect Future? ii

past & non-past past [no voice/tense non-past
Indicative
active & middle active & middle opposition] active & middle
Subjunctive active & middle active & middle [no voice opp.]i -
Optative active & middle active & middle [no voice opp.]i -
Imperative active & middle active & middle - -
Infinitive active & middle? active & middle? - -
Participle active & middle active & middle [no voice opp.] -
i The moods in the perfect were probably developed late in the history of the proto-language
(see §7.4.1). Adrados–Bernabé–Mendoza (1995-1998), Fritz (Meier-Brügger, 2003), Fortson
(2004), Clackson (2007), among others attribute their development to a late innovation,
probably a Graeco-Aryan one. For a reconstruction of a PIE moods in the perfect, see Beekes
(1995), Ringe (2006). Given that Northwestern dialects tended to merge later perfect, aorist
and imperfect into a common preterite, it is probably safe to assume that in any case mood
distinctions for the perfect were not much used in NWIE.
ii With the future we refer to the post-LIE stem incorporated into the conjugation of a
certain verb. Those desideratives with present stems in thematic -s- reconstructed for LIE
(of which the LIV cites more than 100 examples, with almost 40 of them certain) could have
in turn their own present, aorist, perfect, and even future stems.
The general mood system might be so depicted:

Indicative Imperative Optative Subjunctive

action commands wishes, hopes action described
Function described as completely
as fact theoretical
default not conjugated in ablauting athematic thematic -e/o-
mood the first person -ī/jē-, thematic - suffix affixed to
Charact.
special personal oi- affixed to stem stem
endings secondary endings primary endings

249
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

7.5.2. IMPERATIVE
The imperative, used to express direct commands, had probably in PIH the same
basic stem of the indicative, and was used without ending, in a simple expressive-
impressive function, of exclamation or order. Imperatives are the equivalent in
verbal inflection to the vocative in nominal declension.
NOTE. In Late Indo-European a new system was derived from this older scheme, a more
complex imperative system, featuring person, tense and even voice.
The general athematic 2nd sg. imperative ending was -∅; as in ei! go! from eimi;
or es! be! from esmi. An ending -dhí seems to have been common in LIE too; as,
i-dhí! go!, s-dhí! be!
The thematic 2nd singular imperative was the bare thematic stem; bhere! carry!,
age! do! act! The 2nd pl. ends in -te, as bhérete! carry!, agete! do! act!
The thematic and athematic 3rd sg. and 3rd pl. have a special ending -tōd.
NOTE. Endings in *-u, i.e. 3rd sg. *-tu, 3rd pl. *-ntu, are also reconstructed (see Beekes 1995)
from forms like Hitt. paiddu ‘let him go’, or Skt. é-tu, ‘go’; the inclusion of that ending within
the verbal system is, however, difficult. A common IE ending -tōd (cf. Skt. -tt, Gk. -tō,
O.Lat. -tōd, Celtib. -tuz, Goth. -dau), on the other hand, may obviously be explained as the
introduction into the verbal conjugation of a secondary ablative form of the neuter pronoun
tod, this, a logical addition to an imperative formation, with the sense of ‘here’, hence ‘now’,
just as the addition of -i, ‘here and now’ to oppose new endings to the older desinences
(Adrados–Bernabé–Mendoza 1995-1998, Fortson 2004). This formation was further
specialised in some dialects as future imperatives.
In root athematic verbs, plural forms show ∅ vowel and accent on the ending; as,
s-entōd! be they!
For Late Indo-European, only the person distinctions of the active voice are
reconstructed with certainty. Common middle forms include the bare stems plus
middle desinences; as, 2nd sg. -s(w)e/o (cf. Skt. -sva, Gk. lúou<*lúe-so, Lat.
sequere<*seque-se, Ira. *-swe/o), 2nd pl. -dhwe, cf. Gk. lúes-the, O.Ind. bháva-
dhvam. Beekes (1995), Sihler (1995).

Athem. Them. Middle

2. -∅, (-dhí) -e -so
Sg.
3. -tōd -etōd (-to)
2. -te -ete -dhwe
Pl.
3. -ṇtōd -ontōd (-nto)

250
 7. Verbs

NOTE. Forms for the 3rd person are uncertain, although a common sg. -tōd (from the active
voice) is reconstructed; cf. Skt. -tāt, Gk. -sthō (sth- from plural and -ō from tōd), Lat. -tōd.
Middle secondary endings 3rd sg. -to, 3rd pl. -nto, are tentatively reconstructed by Beekes
(1995) as imperative marks with basis on the Sanskrit (-tām, -ntām) and Hittite (-taru, -
antaru) endings.
7.5.3. SUBJUNCTIVE
1. The subjunctive is normally formed by the addition of the thematic vowel to the
verb stem (be it athematic or already thematic), followed apparently by primary
endings (although in Indo-Iranian both primary and secondary endings were used).
The subjunctives made from thematic verbs end therefore usually in so-called
‘doubled’ thematic vowels, i.e. -ē, -ō, and -ā, always opposed to the indicative. These
are sometimes called athematic subjunctives.
NOTE. The reader should take on account that the classification of forms in -ā, -ē, -ō, as
“athematic” is purely conventional; so, for example, Dahl considers them as two thematic
stem allomorphs, terming them long-vowel-subjunctive [=athematic] against short-vowel-
subjunctive [=thematic]. See <http://folk.uio.no/eysteind/PaperICHL.pdf>.
2. The subjunctive always has full grade in the root, and is usually made following
these rules:
a. Indicative athematic vs. subjunctive thematic; as, ind. esmi, I am, senti,
they are, subj. esō, (if) I be.
b. Indicative thematic vs. subjunctive with lengthened thematic vowel; as, ind.
bhéresi, you carry, Sub. bhérēsi, you may carry, (if) you carried.
NOTE. Following Meier-Brügger, “[t]he subjunctive suffix is PIE *-e-, In the case of
athematic verbal stems, the rule is [where K=Consonant] -K+∅- (indicative stem), -K+e-
(subjunctive stem); correspondingly, that of thematic verbs is -e+∅ - (indicative stem), -e+e-
(subjunctive stem).”
3. Subjunctives could also be formed in the same way from root and s-aorists,
where likewise the full grade of the aorist stem was used (Fortson 2004).
NOTE. As indicated by first-person subjunctives like Ved. kr̥ṇavā ‘I will do’, Old Avestan
yaojā ‘I will yoke’, Gk. phérō ‘let me carry’, and Lat. erō ‘I will be’, the 1st singular ended in -
ō rather than -mi (Fortson 2004).
7.5.4. OPTATIVE
The optative mood is a volitive mood that signals wishing or hoping, as in English
I wish I might, I hope it may, I wish you could, etc. It is made with the following
suffix, and secondary endings.

251
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

1) In the athematic flexion, a general alternating suffix -jē-/-ī- with full-grade

in the singular and 3rd pl. and zero-grade elsewhere; as, s-jḗ-m, may I be, s-
ī-mé, may we be, es-ī-nt, may they be.
NOTE. “The stress was on the ending in the 1st and 2nd pl. forms of the mobile paradigms,
and evidently also in the sg. forms of the middle voice, but not in the 3rd pl. forms, where a
number of indications point to original root stress”, as Lat. velint, Goth. wileina, and O.C.S.
velętъ. But, Vedic -ur appears “in all those athematic forms where the stress is either on the
root or on a preceding syllable”. For more on this question, see
<https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/handle/1887/2878>, Kortlandt (1992).
2) When the stress is fixed, it is -oi- in the thematic flexion, and -ī- in the
athematic (e.g. Narten presents); as, bher-oi-t, may he carry.
NOTE. This is probably the thematic -o- plus the zero-grade Optative suffix -i- (<*i-h1-),
i.e. originally *-o-ih1-, or maybe *-o-jh1-, see Hoffmann (1976). Optative endings might yield
a reconstruction of vocalic resonants in PII, PGk from -o-jṃ, -o-jṇt.
3) In the 1st person middle the thematic ending is found (cf. Skt. bruv-īyá); as,
s-īj-á, bhér-oj-a.
Athematic stems have usually root vowel in zero-grade, while thematic stems show
no ablaut.
NOTE. For athematic optatives form the present with zero-grade; cf. Lat. siēm, duim, Gk.
ισταιην, διδοιην, τιθειην, O.Ind. syaam (asmi), dvisyām (dvesmi), iyām (emi), juhuyām
(juhkomi), sunuykām (sunomi), rundhyām (runadhmi), kuryām (karomi), krīnīyām
(krīnāmi), etc. Exceptions are Lat. uelim (not uulim), Goth. (concave) wiljau, wileis, etc.
Sigmatic aorists seem to have formed originally their optative directly with the
verbal stem.
NOTE. It is not clear whether the oldest PIE allowed the sigmatic aorist to form the
optative, as did Old Greek. Kortlandt clearly supports this possibility in
<https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/handle/1887/2878/344_066.pdf?sequence=
1>, regarding the Eolic optative, whilst Jasanoff, in a parallel article at
<http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~jasanoff/pdf/Ablaut%20of%20the%20root%20aori
st%20optative.pdf> considers that “we may take it as given that there was no aorist optative
in s-ih1 in late PIE. The s-aorist based its synchronic optative directly on the verbal root.”
Both authors also differ in the reconstruction of the optative of wel-, wish. More recently,
Jasanoff has published another article on the optative, that can be find at
<http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~jasanoff/pdf/Notes%20on%20internal%20history
%20of%20PIE%20optative.pdf>, and where he continues his reconstruction.

252
 7. Verbs

7.7. NOUN AND ADJECTIVE FORMS

7.7.1. INFINITIVES
1. The infinitives are indeclinable nouns with non-personal verbal functions, which
can be as many as inflection, voice, aspect and even time.
2. The oldest infinitives are the verbal nouns, casual forms inflected as nouns,
sometimes included in the verbal inflection. A verbal noun is a declinable
substantive, derived from the root of a verb.
NOTE. Infinitives are, thus, old nouns reinterpreted as forming part of the verbal
conjugation, probably within the Late Indo-European period. As Meier-Brügger (2003)
notes, “The development of means of differentiation of voice, aspect, and tempus in the
infinitive formations is post-Proto-Indo-European.”
The difference in syntax is important: the verbal noun is constructed as a
substantive, thus e.g. with the object in the genitive; as, wīrosjo chentis, the
murder of a man. Such a formation is opposed to an infinitive with an accusative;
as, wīróm chentum, to murder a man.
3. Verbal nouns were, thus, the normal way to express the idea of a modern
infinitive in PIE. They were formed with the verbal stem and usually a nominal
suffixes -ti-, -tu-; as, statis (<*sth2-ti-), standing, placing, from stā- (<*steh2-)
stand; cem-tus, coming, from cem-, come.
NOTE. Cf. Skt sthíti- ‘stay, sojourn’, Grk stásis ‘place, setting, erection [of a statue]’, Lat
statim ‘firmly, steadfastly’, Eng. stead. Mallory–Adams (2007). Some IE dialects chose later
between limited noun-cases of those verbal nouns for the infinitive formation, generally Acc.,
Loc., Abl.; compare Lat. *-os (sibilant neuter), Gmc. *-on-om (thematic neuter), etc.
4. In Late Indo-European, a common infinitive suffix -tu- (and more limited -ti-)
seems to have been usually added to the accented strong verbal root, conveying the
same meaning as the English infinitive; as, stātum, to stay, opposed to the weak,
unaccented form in participle statós, placed.
NOTE. For generalised IE infinitive formation in -tu [generally -tu-m, i.e. the accusative
of the abstract noun suffix -tu-, often called supine (solely used with verbs of motion to
indicate purpose)], cf. Skt. -tus, -tum (acc.), Gk. -tós, Av. -tos (gen.), -tave, -tavai (dat.), -
tum, Lat. (active & passive supine) -tum (acc.) -tū (dat.-loc.) -tui (dat.), Prus. -twei (dat.) -
tun, -ton (acc.), O.Sla. -tŭ (supine), Lith. -tų, etc.; for -ti-, cf. Ved. -taye (dat), BSl., Cel. -ti
(loc.), Lith. -tie (dat.), etc.; also, in -m-en-, cf. Skt. -mane, O.Gk. -men(ai), etc. On the
infinitive, it is interesting to read Keynada’s thesis Infinitives in the Rigveda (2003). The
thesis is readily available on the web (at least in 2012), but you can always ask for a copy at
his website <http://www.keydana.de/>.

253
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

Also, a common ending -dhjāi added to the verbal stem formed common middle
infinitives.
NOTE. The reconstructed -dhjāi (Haudry), is the basic form behind Ved. -dhyai, Gk.
Middle -σθαι, Umb. -fi, Toch. -tsi, as well as Latin gerunds and the Germanic *-dhjōi (Rix
1979), all related to an original middle infinitive (Beekes 1995, Sihler 1995), although
appearing in both active and passive formations (Fortson 2004). Other forms include -u-, -
er/n-, -(e)s-, extended -s-, -u-, -m-, also Gmc. -no- (as Goth. ita-n<*edo-no-), Arm. -lo-,
etc.
7.7.2. PARTICIPLES
1. The participles are adjectives which have been assimilated to the verbal system,
expressing tense and voice; like other adjectives, they have nominal inflection.
NOTE. The reconstructed Proto-Indo-European shows an intense reliance on participles,
and thus a certain number of participles played a very important role in the early language.
2. Those in -nt-, fem. -nt-ja/ī, are the older ones, and form participles of active
voice to present or aorist stems.
NOTE. In Anatolian, this participle is semantically equivalent to verbal adjectives in -tó-.
In athematics it seems that an ablauting suffix -e/ont with full and zero grade
coexisted in the declension of present participles; cf. s-ent-(also s-ont-)/s-ṇt-,
who exist, being, weq-ont-/uq-ṇt-, who speaks, speaking, dhe-dhē-nt-/dhe-
dha-nt-, placing, jung-ent-/jung-ṇt-, joining, d-ent-, eating (from which
dentis, tooth), j-ent-, going, chn-ent-, killing, ag-ent-, driving, guiding, etc.
NOTE. For s-ṇt- instead of sent-, cf. ap-sṇt- (for apo-we-s-ent-is) in Lat. (ab)sent-,
Myc. pl. (a-p)e-a-sa, i.e. ap-ehassai (with -assa-<*-ṇt-ih2-). A. Morpurgo Davies (1978,
reviewed in Meier-Brügger 2003) considered that “[a]s far as we know, there is no reason to
attribute *h1s-ent- to Proto-Greek.”
In thematics, a form -o-nt- (i.e. -nt added to the thematic vowel) is generalised
as, bher-ont-, who carries, carrying.
NOTE. The suffix -o-nt- shows no generalised ablaut full-grade/zero-grade paradigm in
IEDs. It is safe to assume no accent-ablaut change for North-West IE, and probably also for
LIE, as “[i]t remains to be seen whether the thematic forms were originally declined as *-ont-
/*-nt- (as in Vedic), and were only secondarily reinterpreted as *-o-nt-”, as some have
posited; Meier-Brügger, 2003 (reviewing Rix 1976, Szemerényi 1990).
Also, some questions about the participles are not easily reconciled: in Latin, they are
formed with e ending for stems in -i-; in Greek, they are formed in o and are consonantal
stems. Greek, on the other hand, still shows remains of the thematic vowel in participles of
verba vocalia -ājont-, -ējont-, etc. Latin doesn’t.

254
 7. Verbs

Aorist active participles were formed similarly to present participles, as the root
aorist participle stā-nt-, having stood (cf. Ved. sthānt-, Gk. stant-), s-aorist dhech-
s-ṇt- [‘dhek-sn̥t], having burnt, dḗik-s-ṇt-, having indicated,
3. The perfect active participle has an ablauting suffix -wos-/-us-, fem. -us-ja/ī;
as, weid-wós-, wid-us-ja, knowing, ‘who is in a state of having seen’, from weid-
, see; bher-wós-, ‘who is in a state of having carried’. Common is the reduplicated
Perfect stem; as, qe-qṛ-wós-, making, from qer-.
For the declension of these participles in -nt- and -wos-, see above §5.2.
4. The middle participles have a common suffix -mṇo- for athematic, -o-mṇo in
thematics; as, bhéro-mṇos, carrying (oneself, for oneself), álo-mṇos, who feeds
himself, nurtured, from alō, raise, feed (cf. Lat. alumnus), dhē-mṇā, the one who
gives suck, from dhē-i-, suck (milk), suckle (as Av. daēnu-, Lat. femina, ‘woman’).
NOTE. On the *-mXno- question, where X is a vowel or laryngeal or even laryngeal+vowel,
while Melchert (1983) or Szemerényi (1990) support an original -mn-o-, a competing
hypothesis is Fritz’s one with an original *-mh1eno-, into variants *-mh1no- and then -mno-,
in which “the laryngeal disappears when the suffix is added to a root or stem with a non-
syllabic final position preceding the full vowel e. The non-laryngeal full grade form *-meno-
would then have the newly constructed zero grade form *-mno-” (Meier-Brügger 2003). The
differentiation of the perfect *-mh1n-ó- vs. the present *´-o-mh1no- in the various IE
languages may be traced back to the athematic/thematic dichotomy (Rix 1976). For an
explanation on the auxiliary vowel in Adrados–Bernabé–Mendoza (1995-1998), see §2.3.
5. In addition to participles, PIE had verbal adjectives in -tó- and -nó-, added
usually to the zero-grade of a verbal stem that indicated completed action, and were
semantically like past participles in English. If the verb they were formed from was
transitive (like eat), the verbal adjective was passive and past in tense (eaten), but
if the verb was intransitive (like go), the verbal adjective was simply past in tense
(gone) Fortson (2004). Examples include chṇ-tós, slain, from transitive chenmi,
murder, cf. Skt. hatá-, Gk. -phatós, sjū-tós, sewn, from sisō, tṇ-tós, stretched,
kltós, heard; cṃ-tós, (having) come, from intransitive cemjō, come.
a. General -tó-, added usually to zero-grade roots; as, altós, grown, dhatós,
placed, kaptós, taken, liqtós, left, etc. Exceptions include e.g. gnōtós, having
been understood.

b. Old (not generalised) -nó- and its variants; as, plēnós, ‘(having been) filled
up’, full, bhidhnós, ‘having been split’, parted, bitten; wṛgnós, worked.

255
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

NOTE. For plēnós, from pel-, fill, an adjective which was not part of the verbal paradigm,
cf. Skt. pūrṇá-, Lat. plēnus (vs. past participle –plētus ‘filled’), Goth. fulls (double -ll- < *-
ln-), O.Ir. lán, Lith. pìlnas. Also, the common PIE verb is found from this root, plḗnāmi,
fill, cf. O.Ind. pṛṇti Goth. fullnan, Ger. füllen, O.Ir. lín(a)im, Arm. lnum, and root Gk.
píplēmi.
Verbal adjectives in -mó-, -ló-, functioned as past participles in individual languages; as,
present passive participle in Balto-Slavic -mo-, cf. O.C.S. nĕsomŭ, Lith. nēšamas ‘being
carried’, perhaps Anatolian, cf. Luv. kīšammi- ‘combed’. For its old use, cf. prāmós,
foremost, first, from per-, v.s. §5.5.2; however, Latin prīmus is usually reconstructed as
from prei-isamós (cf. Paelignian prsmū), but possibly superlative pṛw-isamós, from the
same root as common PIE prāmos, prāwos, first, is the solution (see Szemerényi 1970,
Adrados–Bernabé–Mendoza 1995-1998).

7.7.3. GERUNDIVES AND ABSOLUTIVES

1. Verbal adjectives are not assimilated to the verbal system of tense and voice.
Those which indicate need or possibility are called gerundives.

NOTE. Verbal adjectives and adjectives (as verbal nouns and nouns) cannot be easily
differentiated.
2. Whereas the same participle suffixes are found, i.e. -tó-, -nó-, -mó-, there are
two forms especially identified with gerundives in IEDs:

a. -ló- and -li- are found in Latin, Balto-Slavic, Tocharian and Armenian; as,
ṇbherelós, unbearable, ágilis, agile, etc.

NOTE. For suffix -lo- as a participle suffix, cf. Russ. videlŭ, Lat. credulus, bibulus,
tremulus, etc.

b. -jó- (a common lengthening to differentiate adjectives) is sometimes a

gerundive of obligation, as well as forms in -tu-, -ti-, -ndho-, etc.; as, dhṛsjós,
that has to be dared; gnōtinós, that has to be known; gnskendhos, that has
to be born, awisdhíjendhos, that has to be heard; and so on.

NOTE. Some forms in -ndhos seem to retain a so-called fossil proto-gerundive (Meiser
1998), from an archaic ending *-dnós, whose meaning lack the passive obligation common
to the gerundive; so e.g. *mlāje-dnós>O. Lat. *blandos, *rotodnós (Lat. rotundus), round,
or *seqodnós (Lat. secundus). Outside Latin it is possibly found e.g. in Gk. tēkedṓ
‘consumption’ or *phagedṓn (cf. Gk. phagédaina ‘gangrene’); see Blanc (2004) in
<http://www.cairn.info/publications-de-Blanc-Alain--7916.htm>.
Jasanoff dismisses this so-called lex unda, proposing an ‘original’ -tino-, in his article
<http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~jasanoff/pdf/Latin%20gerundive%20(preprint).pdf

256
 7. Verbs

>. We would have then a group of passive participles-gerundives, which indicate

possibility/obligation, built by agglutination of two suffixes; as, -ti-no-, -i-jo- (cf. O.Ind.
ramanīya, miśranīya), -tew-(ij)o-, -ti-mo- (cf. Gk. aidesimos), O.C.S.
pečalьnъ ‘deplorable’ (cf. O.Ir. fedelm), Lat. amābilis, etc. Jasanoff also presents abstracts
in -(n)ti-, which are behind the Latin gerund.
c. A future (or obligation) passive gerundive ending, -téw(ij)os, existed in Late
Indo-European; as, legtéw(ij)os, which has to be said, read or gathered. Because
of its passive use, it may be used only with transitive verbs.
NOTE. For the absolutive use of -téw(ij)os, cf. Gk. -τεος, O.Ind. -tavya, O.Ir. -the, etc.,
probably all from verbal adjectives in -tu-, full grade -tew-, usually lengthened with
common gerundive ending -ij-.
d. -mṇ, with a general meaning of ‘able’; as, mnāmṇ, mindful.

NOTE. For the ‘internal derivation’ (after the German and Austrian schools) of this PIE
suffix -mṇ→*-mon, cf. Gk. mnẽma < mń-mṇ ‘reminder’, Gk. mnḗmon < mnāmṇ ‘who
remembers’; compare also Skt. bráhman ‘prayer’, Skt. brahmán ‘brahman’, etc.
3. The adverbial, not inflected verbal adjectives are called absolutives or gerunds.
They were usually derived from older gerundives.

NOTE. PIE speakers had to use verbal periphrases or other resources to express the idea of
a modern gerund, as there were no common reconstructible PIE gerunds. Just like verbal
nouns were the usual basis to express the idea of infinitives, verbal adjectives (and especially
gerundives) were a common PIE starting point to create gerunds.

257
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

7.8. CONJUGATED EXAMPLES

7.8.1. THEMATIC VERBS

I. PRESENT STEM

ACTIVE
loutum, to wash (present stem low-o-)

Indicative Subjunctive Optative Imperative IMPERFEC

lowō lowō lowoim - lowom

Sg. lówesi lówēsi lowois lowe lowes

lóweti lówēti lowoit lówetōd lowet
lówomos lówōmos lówoime - lówomo

Pl. lówete lówēte lówoite lówete lówete

lówonti lówōnti lowoint lówontōd lowont

deiktum, to show (present stem deik-o-)

Indicative Subjunctive Optative Imperative IMPERFEC

deikō deikō deikoim - deikom

Sg. déikesi déikēsi deikois deike deikes

déiketi déikēti deikoit déiketōd deiket
déikomos déikōmos déikoime - déikome

Pl. déikete déikēte déikoite déikete deikete

déikonti déikōnti deikoint déikontōd déikont

weistum (<weid-tum), to see (present stem wid-ḗjo-)

Indicative Subjunctive Optative Imperative IMPERFEC

Sg. widējō widējō widējoim - widējom
widḗjesi widḗjēsi widējois widēje widējes
widḗjeti widḗjēti widējoit widḗjetōd widējet
Pl. widḗjomo widḗjōmos widḗjoime - widḗjomo
widḗjete widḗjēte widḗjoite widḗjete widḗjete
widḗjonti widḗjōnti widējoint widḗjontōd widḗjont

258
 7. Verbs

MIDDLE-PASSIVE

loutum, to wash (present stem low-o-)

Indicative Subjunctive Optative IMPERFECT

lowōr lówōmar lówoima lowa

Sg. lówesor lówēsor lówoiso lóweso

lówetor lówētor lówoito lóweto
lówomesdha lówōmesdha lówoimedha lówomedha

Pl. lówedhwe lówēdhwe lówoidhwe lówedhwe

lówontor lówōntor lówointo lówonto

deiktum, to show (present stem deik-o-)

Indicative Subjunctive Optative IMPERFECT

deikōr déikōmar déikoima deika

Sg. déikesor déikēsor déikoiso déikeso

déiketor déikētor déikoito déiketo
déikomesdha déikōmesdha déikoimedha déikomedha

Pl. déikedhwe déikēdhwe déikoidhwe déikedhwe

déikontor déikōntor déikointo déikonto

weistum, to see (present stem wid-ḗjo-)

Indicative Subjunctive Optative IMPERFECT

widējōr widḗjōmar widḗjoima widēja

Sg. widḗjesor widḗjēsor widḗjoiso widḗjeso

widḗjetor widḗjētor widḗjoito widḗjeto
widḗjomesdha widḗjōmesdha widḗjoimedh widḗjomedha

Pl. widḗjedhwe widḗjēdhwe widḗjoidhwe widḗjedhwe

widḗjontor widḗjōntor widḗjointo widḗjonto

259
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

II. AORIST STEM

ACTIVE
loutum, to wash (aorist stem lou-s-, sigmatic)

Indicative Subjunctive Optative

lousṃ lousō lousīm

Sg. lous lousesi lousīs

loust louseti lousīt
lousme lóusomos lóusīme

Pl. louste lóusete lóusīte

lousṇt lousonti lousīnt

deiktum, to show (aorist stem dik-ó-, zero-grade)

Indicative Subjunctive Optative

dikóm dikṓ dikóim

Sg. dikés dikḗsi dikóis

dikét dikḗti dikóit
dikome dikōmos dikoime

Pl. dikete dikēte dikoite

dikónt dikṓnti dikóint

NOTE. For original dikóm, cf. diśáti, Gk. ἄδικος, etc.

weistum, to see (aorist stem wid-ó-, zero-grade)

Indicative Subjunctive Optative

widóm widṓ widóim

Sg. widés widḗsi widóis

widét widḗti widóit
widome widōmos widoime

Pl. widete widēte widoite

widónt widṓnti widóint
NOTE. For PIE accent on the optative suffix, following the accent on the thematic vowel of
certain Aorist formations, cf. O.Ind. them. aor. opt. sg. vidé-s (<*widói-s).

260
 7. Verbs

MIDDLE-PASSIVE

loutum, to wash (aorist stem lou-s-, sigmatic)

Indicative Subjunctive Optative

lousma lousōr lóusīma

Sg. louso lóusesor lóusīso

lousto lóusetor lóusīto
lóusmedha lóusomesdhā lóusīmedha

Pl. lousdhwe lóusedhwe lóusīdhwe

lousṇto lóusontor lóusīnto

deiktum, to show (aorist stem dik-ó-, zero-grade)

Indicative Subjunctive Optative

diká dikṓr dikoima

Sg. dikeso dikēsor dikóiso

diketo dikētor dikoito
dikómedha dikṓmesdhā dikóimedha

Pl. dikedhwe dikēdhwe dikoidhwe

dikonto dikōntor dikointo

weistum, to see (aorist stem wid-ó-, zero-grade)

Indicative Subjunctive Optative

widá widṓr widoima

Sg. wideso widḗsor widoiso

wideto widētor widoito
widómedha widṓmesdhā widóimedha

Pl. widedhwe widēdhwe widoidhwe

widonto widōntor widointo

261
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

III. PERFECT STEM

loutum, to wash (perfect stem lōu-/lou-)

Indicative Subjunctive Optative

lōwa lōwō loujḗm

Sg. lōutha lōwēsi loujḗs

lōwe lōwēti loujḗt
loumé lṓwōmos lowīmé

Pl. louté lṓwēte lowīté

lowḗr lōwōnti lownt

deiktum, to show (perfect stem doik-/dik-)

Indicative Subjunctive Optative

doika doikō dikjḗm

Sg. doiktha doikesi dikjḗs

doike doiketi dikjḗt
dikmé dóikomos dikīmé

Pl. dikté dóikete dikīté

dikḗr doikonti diknt

weistum, to see (perfect stem woid-/wid-, know)

Indicativ Subjunctive Optative

woida woidō widjḗm

Sg. woisthai woidesi widjḗs

woide woideti widjḗt
widmé wóidomos widīme

Pl. wistéii wóidete widīte

widḗr woidonti widnt

i From woid-tha. ii From wid-té.

262
 7. Verbs

7.8.2. ATHEMATIC INFLECTION

I. PRESENT STEM

ACTIVE

estum, to be (present stem es-/s-)

Indicative Subjunctive Optative Imperative IMPERFECT

esmi esō sjēm - esṃ

Sg. esi ésesi sjēs es/sdhí es

esti éseti sjēt estōd est
smes ésomes sīme - sme

Pl. ste ésete sīte (e)ste ste

senti esonti sīnt sentōd sent

NOTE. Proto-Indo-European verb es-, be, exist, originally built only a durative aspect of
present, and was therefore supported in some dialects (as Gmc., Sla., Lat.) by the root bheu-
, be, exist, which helped to build some future and past formations.

kleutum, to hear (present stem kḷneu-/kḷnu-, with nasal infix)

Indicative Subjunctive Optative Imperative IMPERF.

kḷneumi kḷnewō kḷnujḗm - kḷnewṃ

Sg kḷneusi kḷnéwesi kḷnujḗs kḷnéu/kḷnudhí kḷnéus

. kḷneuti kḷnéweti kḷnujḗt kḷneutōd kḷnéut
kḷnumés kḷnéwomos kḷnwīmé - kḷnumé

Pl. kḷnuté kḷnéwete kḷnwīté kḷnuté kḷnuté

kḷnunti kḷnéwonti kḷnewīnt kḷnwentōd kḷnúnt

NOTE. Indicative forms could have possibly been read with a columnar accent in a post-
Late Indo-European period, i.e. kḷnumes, kḷnute, opt. kḷnwīme, kḷnwīte, imp. kḷnudhi,
as in Greek.
The 3rd pl. optative had full-grade root vowel, see Kortlandt (1992), Beekes (1995).

263
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

stātum, to stand (present stem (si)stā-/(si)sta-, reduplicated)

Indicative Subjunctive Optative Imperative IMPERFECT

(sí)stāmi stájō (si)stajḗm - (si)stām

Sg (sí)stāsi stájesi (si)stajḗs stā/stadhí (si)stās

(sí)stāti stájeti (si)stajḗt stātōd (si)stāt
(si)stamés stájomos (si)staīmé - (si)stamé

Pl. (si)staté stájete (si)staīté staté (si)staté

(si)stanti stájonti (si)stant stanti (si)stant

NOTE. Indicative forms were possibly read in post-LIE period with columnar accent, as
sístames, sístate, etc. or stames, state, etc.
The optative formations show zero-grade stem sta-, and the accent is written to distinguish
-a-ī- from a diphthong -aī-.
For sta-jo- as a thematic subjunctive (cf. O. Gk. subj. 1st pl. στείομεν (< PGk stejo- < LIE
*stəjo- > NWIE stajo-), from Gk. ἵστημι; also, θείομεν (<PGk dhejo- < LIE *dhəjo- > NWIE
dhajo-) from τίθημι, IE dhē-; δείομεν (<PGk dejo- < LIE *dəjo- > NWIE dajo-) from Gk.
δίδωμι, IE dō; and so on.

MIDDLE-PASSIVE

kleutum, to hear (present stem kḷneu-/kḷnu-, with nasal infix)

Indicative Subjunctive Optative IMPERFECT

kḷnumár kḷnéwomar kḷnwīmá kḷnumá

Sg. kḷnusór kḷnéwesor kḷnwīsó kḷnusó

kḷnutór kḷnéwetor kḷnwītó kḷnutó
kḷnumesdha kḷnéwomesdh kḷnwīmedha kḷnumédha

Pl. kḷnudhwé kḷnéwedhwe kḷnwīdhwé kḷnudhwé

kḷnuntór kḷnéwontor kḷnwīntó kḷnuntó

NOTE. In a post-LIE period a common columnar accent would have been also possible; viz.
kḷnumar, kḷnusor, etc.

264
 7. Verbs

stātum, to stand (present stem (si)stā-/(si)sta-, reduplicated)

Indicative Subjunctive Optative IMPERFECT

(si)stamár stajōr (si)staīmá (si)stama

Sg. (si)stasór stájesor (si)staīsó (si)staso

(si)statór stájetor (si)staītó (si)stato
(si)stamesdh stájomesdha (si)staīmedha (si)stámedha

Pl. (si)stadhwé stájedhwe (si)staīdhwé (si)stadhwe

(si)stantor stájontor (si)staīntó (si)stanto

II. AORIST STEM

ACTIVE
kleutum, to hear (aorist klew-/klu-)

Indicative Subjunctive Optative

klewom klewō klujḗm

Sg. klewes kléwēsi klujḗs

klewet kléwēti klujḗt
klwome kléwōmos klwīmé

Pl. klwete kléwēte klwīté

klwont kléwōnti klwīnt

NOTE. For aorist klew-/klu- cf. Gk. ἔ-κλυον, O.Ind. áśrot.

stātum, to stand (aorist stem stā-)

Indicative Subjunctive Optative

stām stajō stajḗm

Sg. stās stájesi stajḗs

stāt stájeti stajḗt
stamé stájomos staīmé

Pl. staté stájete staīté

stnt stajonti staīnt

265
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

MIDDLE-PASSIVE

kleutum, to hear (aorist stem kluw-)

Indicative Subjunctive Optative

klwá kléwōr klwīmá

Sg. klwesó kléwēsor klwīsó

klwetó kléwētor klwītó
klwomesdha kléwōmesdha klwīmedha

Pl. klwedhwé kléwēdhwe klwīdhwé

klwontó kléwōntor klwīntó

stātum, to stand (aorist stem stā-)

Indicative Subjunctive Optative

stāmá stajōr staīmá

Sg. stāsó stájesor staīsó

stātó stájetor staītó
stamedha stájomesdha staīmedha

Pl. stadhwé stájedhwe staīdhwé

stantó stájontor staīntó

III. PERFECT STEM

kleutum, to hear (perfect stem ké-klou-/ké-klu-, reduplicated)

Indicative Subjunctive Optative

kéklowa kéklowō keklujḗm

Sg. kékloutha kéklowesi keklujḗs

kéklowe kékloweti keklujḗt
keklumé kéklowomos keklwīmé

Pl. kekluté kéklowete keklwīté

keklwḗr kéklowonti keklwnt

266
 7. Verbs

stātum, to stand (perfect stem se-stā-/se-sta-, reduplicated)

Indicative Subjunctive Optative

sestā séstājō sestajḗm

Sg. séstātha séstājesi sestajḗs

sestā séstājeti sestajḗt
sestamé séstājomos sestaīmé

Pl. sestaté séstājete sestaīté

sestr séstājonti sestant

NOTE. For reduplicated s(t)e-sta- (with different accent paradigms, often reconstructed
with stress on the root), cf. O.Ind. perf. tastháu, Av. -šastarə, Gk. héstamen, O.Ir. -sestar.

7.8.3. COMMON PIE STEMS

I. THEMATIC VERBS
1. Root:
o Present lowō, I wash, aorist lousṃ, perfect lélowa.
o Present serpō, I crawl, aorist sṛpóm.
o Present bherō, I carry, aorist bhērm, perfect bhébhora.
o Present bheugō, I flee, aorist bhugóm.
o Present bheidhō, I believe, persuade, trust, aorist bhidhom.
o Present weqō, I speak, aorist (them. redupl.) weuqom.
o Present tremō, I tremble, aorist tṛmom.
NOTE. A particular sub-class of thematic presents without suffix is of the type Skt. tudáti,
which have present stems with zero-grade root-vowel, as glubhō/gleubhō, skin.
2. Reduplicated:
There are many reduplicated thematic stems, analogous to the athematic ones:
o Present gignō, I beget, (from gen-), aorist gnom/genóm, perfect
gégona, p.part. gnātós.
NOTE. For gnātós, cf. O.Ind. jātás, Av. zāta-; Lat. nātus, Pael. cnatois, Gaul. f. gnātha
“daughter”; O.N. kundr “son”, also in compound, cf. Goth. -kunds, “ be a descendant of “,
O.E. -kund, O.N. -kunnr.
o Present pibō, I drink (<reduplicated pí-pō, from pōi-).
o Present mimnō, I remember, (from men-).
3. In -je/o-, some of them are causatives:
o Present spekjō, I watch, aorist speksṃ, p.part. spektós.

267
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

o Present tenjō, I stretch, aorist tnom/tenóm, perfect tétona, p.part.

tṇtós.
4. Verba vocalia:
o Present widējō, I see, I know, aorist widóm, perfect woida p.part. wistós
(<wid-tós).
o Present monejō, I make think, warn, as Lat. moneo, from men-, think.
o Present tromejō, I make tremble, from trem-, tremble.
5. In -ske/o-:
o Present pṛkskṓ, I ask, demand, inquire (cf. Lat. posco, Ger. forschen) from
prek-, ask.
o Present gnāskōr, I am born (cf. Lat. gnascor), p.part. gnātós, from zero-
grade of gnō-, beget.
o Present (gí)gnoskō, I begin to know, I learn, from gnō-, know.
6. With nasal infix:
o Present jungō, join (from jeug-), aorist jeugom; p.part. jugtós.

NOTE. Compare O.H.G. (untar-)jauhta (as Lat. sub-jugaui), Lat. jungō, -ere, -nxi, -nctus,
Gk. ζεύγνῡμι, ζεῦξαι ζυγηναι; O.Ind. yunákti (3. Pl. yuñjánti = Lat. jungunt), yuñjati, full-
grade yōjayati (<jeugējeti); Av. yaoj-, yuj-; Lit. jùngiu, jùngti, etc. For past participles
(with and without present infix -n-), compare O.E. geoht, iukt, Lat. junctus, Gk. δεπθηόο,
O.Ind. yuktá-, Av. yuxta-, Lit. jùngtas, etc.
II. ATHEMATIC VERBS
1. Root: They are the most archaic PIE verbs, and their present conjugation is of
the old type singular root vowel in full-grade, plural root vowel in zero-grade.
o Present esmi, I am.
o Present eimi, I go.
o Present bhāmi, I speak.
NOTE. The verb talk is sometimes reconstructed as PIE *āmi, I talk, and imperfect *ām, I
talked/have talked; for evidence of an original ag(h)-jō, compare Lat. aiō, Gk. ην, Umb.
aiu, Arm. asem. Thus, this paradigm would rather be thematic, i.e. present ag(h)jō, I talk,
vs. imperfect ag(h)jóm, I talked/have talked.
o Present edmi, I eat.
NOTE. Note that its early present participle dent-, “eating”, was frozen as substantive
dentis, meaning “tooth”.
o Present welmi, I want.
2. Reduplicated:

268
 7. Verbs

o Present (sí)stāmi (from stā-, stand), aorist stām, p.part. statós.

o Present déidikmi (from deik-, show), aorist dēiksṃ, perfect dédoika,
p.part. diktós.
o Present dhédhēmi (from dhē-, do, make), aorist dhēm, p.part. dhatós.
o Present dídōmi (from dō-, give), aorist dōm, p.part. datós.
o Present jíjēmi, expel, aorist jem.

NOTE. For evidence on an original PIE jíjēmi, and not ˟jíjāmi as it is sometimes
reconstructed, cf. Lat. pret. iēcī, a form due to its two consecutive laryngeals, while Lat. iaciō
is a present remade (J. González Fernández, 1981).

3. With nasal infix:

o kḷnéumi, hear (from kleu-), aorist klewom, perfect kéklowa, p.part.
kltós, heard, also ‘famous’.
o punémi, rot (from pew), aorist pēwsṃ.

7.9. VERBAL COMPOSITION

Verbs were often combined with adverbs to modify their meaning. Such adverbs
were called preverbs and in the first instance remained separate words. Over time
they tended to join with verbs as prefixes.
NOTE. For more on preverbs, see below §10.6.1.
Occasionally, verbs were compounded with a non-adverbial element, such as a
noun. The most familiar example of this is kréd-dhē-mi, believe, trust, literally
‘place one’s heart in’, cf. Vedic Skt. śrád dadhāti, Lat. crēdō, and O.Ir. cretim
(Fortson 2004).

7.10. THE VERBAL ACCENT

The finite verb of a LIE main clause was normally placed following the subject and
the object, at the end of the sentence, where the sentence accent usually decreases.
However, when the verb was stressed at the beginning of the sentence, or in a
subordinate clause, it carried its normal accent.
NOTE. Fortson (2004): “In Vedic Sanskrit, main-clause finite verbs that do not stand at
the beginning of their clause are written in the manuscripts without accent marks. In Greek,
the rules for accenting verbs are different from those for nouns, and resemble the
accentuation of strings of clitics; this suggests an affinity between the prosody of verbs and
the prosody of chains of weakly stressed or unstressed particles. In Germanic heroic poetry,
fully stressed words alliterate with one another, but certain verbs, together with unstressed

269
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

pronouns and particles, do not participate in alliteration; this suggests weaker prosodic
status for those verbs. In certain Germanic languages, such as modem German, verbs are
required to be the second syntactic unit in main clauses, which is the same position taken by
many unstressed sentence particles elsewhere in Indo-European (Wackernagel’s Law)”.
Meier-Brügger (2003) also states that “[r]esearchers agree that Vedic generally reflects the
fundamental characteristics of Proto-Indo-European, and thus, that the finite verb in a main
clause was unstressed (…) It remains disputed whether the second position of the finite verb,
common to modern Germanic languages such as German, originated from the inherited
phenomenon of enclitics, or whether it appeared secondarily”. On that, Wackernagel (1892)
“the German rule of word order was already valid in the mother language”.
Finite verbs were therefore prosodically deficient in PIE, they could behave as
clitics, i.e. they had no stress and formed an accentual unit with a neighbouring
stressed word. However, they were fully stressed when moved to the front of a clause
for emphasis or contrast, or when occurring in subordinate clauses. See below §10
Syntax.

270
 8. Particles

8. PARTICLES
8.1. PARTICLES
8.1.1. Adverbs, prepositions, conjunctions and interjections are called particles.
They cannot always be distinctly classified, for many adverbs are used also as
prepositions and many as conjunctions.
8.1.2. Strictly speaking, particles are usually defined as autonomous elements,
usually clitics, which make modifications in the verb or sentence, but which don’t
have a precise meaning, and which are neither adverbs nor preverbs nor
conjunctions.
8.1.3. Indo-European has some particles (in the strictest sense) which mark
certain syntax categories, classified as follows.
a. Emphatics or generalisers may affect the whole sentence or a single word,
usually a pronoun, but also a noun or verb.
i. The particles -ge/-gi, -ghe/-ghi, usually strengthen the negation, and
emphasise different pronouns; as, egōge, ‘I (for one), as for myself, I…’, neghí,
certainly not.
NOTE. The origin of these particles is possibly to be found in the same root as PIE -qe,
acquiring its coordinate value from an older use as word-connector, from which this
intensive/emphatic use was derived. Compare O.Ind. gha, ha, hí, Av. zi, Gk. ge, -gí, -χí, Lith.
gu, gi, O.Sla. -go, že, ži, Also, compare, e.g. for intensive negative neghi, O.Ind. nahí, O.E.
nek, Balt. negi. If compared with Gk. -thé, O.Ind. gha, ha, O.Sla. -že, -go, and related to -qe,
a common particle che/o might tentatively be reconstructed.
ii. e comes probably from the pronoun i-, v.s. §6.5, §6.6. It appears e.g. in e-
djēu, today, e-so, this, etc.
iii. i, e.g. in num-í, now.
iv. ke, here, this, cf. Lith. šè’, Lat. -c(e), O.Lat. hocce <*hod-ce.
v. u, cf. Skt. u, Gk. hoũtos, Goth. u.
vi. tar, cf. Luv. -tar, Hom. Gk. tar. It appears to have been especially used with
interrogatives, qis tar?, who (indeed)? cf. Luv. kuiš-tar = Hom. Gk. tís tar.
NOTE. Although the article of Katz is brilliant, it is not clear whether Gk. tar might also be
reconstructed as *kwe+ar, as well as Gk. aute as *Hu+kwe
<http://www.jstor.org/pss/4427613>.
vii. kem, a modal particle; cf. Hitt. -kan, Gk. ke(n), Ved. kám.
b. Verb modifiers:

271
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

i. The old -ti had a middle value, i.e. reflexive.

NOTE. This is a very old value, attested in Anatolian, cf. Hitt. za, Pal. -ti, Luw. -ti, Lyd. -
(i)t, Lyc. -t/di.
ii. The modal -man, associated with the indicative, expresses potentiality
(when used in present) and irreality (in the past).
NOTE. It is probably the same as the conjunction man, if, and closely related to -ma, but.
iii. The negative particle mē, nē, associated with the indicative or forms
indifferent to the moods.
NOTE. Sometimes, the intermediate syllable in Lat. dōnique (dōnicum) has been
reconstructed as *-nē/ne- (see for example Fortson’s article on Latin and Sabellic at
<http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/american_journal_of_philology/v131/131.1.fortson.pdf> p.
23) and *-na-.
c. Sentence categorisers indicate the class of sentence, whether negative or
interrogative.
i. Absolute interrogatives were introduced by special particles, generally an.
NOTE. The origin could be the “non-declarative sense” of the sentence. It has been
proposed a common origin with the negative particle ne/ṇ.
ii. Negation has usually two particles, etymologically related:
- Simple negation is made by the particle ne, and lengthened with -i, -n, -
d, etc.; as, emphatic nei, not at all. From the same root is the privative
prefix ṇ-, un- (cf. Hitt. am-, Skt. and Gk. a(n)-, Lat. in-, Eng. un- etc.).
- Mood negation or prohibitive (used with verb forms in negative
commands) is the particle mē, general west IE nē.
NOTE. For PIE mē, compare Gk. μή, O.Ind.,Av.,O.Pers. mā, Toch. mar/mā, Arm. mi, Alb.
mos. In some PIE dialects (as generally in west IE), nē (from ne) fully replaced the function
of mē, cf. Goth. ne, Lat. nē, Ira. ni. It is not clear whether Hitt. lē is ultimately derived from
mē or nē. For ne oinom, not ever, not at all, cf. Lat. nōn, Eng. none, Gk. ou from *ne h2oiu.
d. Sentence connectives introduce independent sentences or connect different
sentences, or even mark the principal sentence among subordinates.
so and to, which are in the origin of the anaphoric pronoun.
nu, now, which has an adverbial, temporal-consecutive meaning; cf. Skt. nú,
O.C.S. nyne, Lith. nù, Hitt. nu, Gk. nu, Lat. nunc, O.Ir. nu, Goth. nu.
de; postpositive, cf. Gk. dé.

272
 8. Particles

ar, and, thus, therefore, an introductory or connective particle, which is

possibly the origin of some coordinate conjunctions; cf. Lith. ir ‘and, also’, Gk.
ra, ar, ára ‘thus, as known’. Also reconstructed as -ṛ.
ne, thus, cf. Lat. ne, Gk. ne, Skt. ná, Lith. nei.
-pe, cf. Lith. kaĩ-p ‘how’, Lat. quip-pe ‘because’.
sma, truly, cf. Skt. smá, Gk. mēn.
swod, as, like, cf. Av. hvat, Goth. swa.
tu, cf. Skt. tú, O.C.S. thu-s, Goth. dau(h), Ger. doch.

8.2. ADVERBS
8.2.1. There is a class of invariable words, able to modify nouns and verbs, adding
a specific meaning, whether semantic or deictic. They can be independent words
(adverbs), prefixes of verbal stems (preverbs) – originally independent but usually
merged with them – and also a nexus between a noun and a verb (appositions),
expressing a non-grammatical relationship, normally put behind, but sometimes
coming before the word.
NOTE. In PIE the three categories are only different uses of the same word class; they were
eventually classified and assigned to only one function and meaning in the different
languages attested. In fact, adverbs are often clearly distinguished from the other two
categories in the history of Indo-European languages, so that they change due to innovation,
while preverbs and appositions remain the same and normally freeze in their oldest attested
positions.
8.2.2. Adverbs come usually from old particles which have obtained a specific
deictic meaning. Traditionally, adverbs are deemed to be the result of oblique cases
of old nouns or verbal roots which have frozen in IE dialects, thus loosing inflection.

8.3. DERIVATION OF ADVERBS

8.3.1. Adverbs were regularly formed in PIE from nouns, pronouns and adjectives.
8.3.2. From pronouns we find adverbs made as follows:
i. With a nasal lengthening; as, tām, at that point, jāmi, already, teni, until,
kina, from this side, dom, still, num-, now, nom, so.
NOTE. Those in -ām are interpreted as being originally acc. sg. fem. of independent forms.

ii. An -s lengthening, added to the adverb and not to the basic form, giving
sometimes alternating adverbs; as, ap/aps, ek/eks, ambhí/ambhís, etc.

273
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

iii. An -r lengthening; as, tor, kir, etc. which is added also to other derived
adverbs. It is less usual than the other two.
NOTE. Compare for such lengthenings Goth. hwar, her, (O.E. where, hier), Lat. cur, O.Ind.
kár-hi, tár-hi, Lith. kur, Hitt. kuwari. Also, IE qor-i, tor-i, kir-i, etc. may show a final
circumstantial -i, probably the same which appears in the oblique cases and in the primary
verbal endings, and which originally meant ‘here and now’.
8.3.3. Some older adverbs, derived as the above, were in turn specialised as
suffixes for adverb derivation, helping to create compound adverbs from two
pronoun stems:
a. From dē, from upwards; as, imde, from there; or nasal -dem.
b. Possibly from root dhē-, put, place, there are two particles which give suffixes
with local meaning ‘here’, from stems of pronouns, nouns, adverbs and
prepositions, -d(h)em, and -dhei/-dhi; as idhei, there, ṇdhi, in excess.
NOTE. For -dem, cf. Lat. idem, quidam, O.Ind. idān-im; for -dhem, -dhi, Gk. -then, -tha,
-thi. For the origin of these adverbs in -bhi, and for adverbs in -is (Gk. mogis, etc.), see
<http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~jasanoff/pdf/Following%20the%20trail.pdf> from
Jasanoff.
c. Some adverbial suffixes with mood sense – some with temporal sense, derived
from the older modal; as, ita, so, uta, rather, anta, towards, etc.; and itim,
item, autim, otherwise, uti, out, etc.
NOTE. Compare from PIE -ta (<*-th2), Lat. iti-dem, ut(i), ita, Gk. protí, au-ti, O.Ind. iti,
práti; from -t(i)m, Lat. i-tem, Gk. ei-ta, epei-ta, O.Ind. u-tá.
d. In -d: cf. Lat. probē, Osc. prufēd; O.Ind. pascāt, adharāt, purastāt.
e. In -nim: cf. Osc. enim ‘and’, O.Ind. tūsnim ‘silently’, maybe also idānim is
*idā-nim, not *idān-im.
f. In -tos: cf. Lat. funditus, diuinitus, publicitus, penitus; O.Ind. vistarataḥ ‘in
detail’, samkṣepataḥ, prasangataḥ ‘occasionally’, nāmattaḥ ‘namely’, vastutaḥ
‘actually’, mata ‘by/for me’.
g. In -ks: cf. Lat. uix, Gk. περιξ, O.Ind. samyak ‘well’, prthak ‘separately’, Hitt.
hudak ‘directly’.
8.3.4. From nouns and adjectives (usually neuter accusatives), frozen as adverbs
already in Late Indo-European. The older endings to form adverbs are the same as
those above, i.e. generally -i, -u and -(i)m.
Common cases of substantives and adjectives include the following, from which
mainly the accusative and locative were productively used (Beekes 1995):

274
 8. Particles

The nominative might be behind edjēu, today (cf. Lat. hodiē, O.Ir. indiu, Welsh
heddyw, Skt. ady).
The accusative singular is found very often in adverbs:
• Of content: One of the most extended adverbs was neuter nominative-
accusative singular of the adjective for ‘great’, used to mean ‘greatly’, mega
(cf. Hitt. mēk, Ved. máhi, Gk. méga, O.N. mjǪk); also, we could infer plēim,
much, from plēis, more (cf. Gk. polú, O.C.S. mŭnogo, Lat. multum, Goth.
filu).
• Of space or time: prāmom, firstly; éterom, secondly, already seen.
• Of direction: cf. Lat. domum<domom, ‘housewards’, Skt. dūrám < dūróm,
‘in (toward) the distance’.
• From an apposition: partim, partly.
The genitive is seen in words which indicate place and time; as, noqtjos, at night
(cf. Gk. nuktós, Goth. nahts).
The ablative indicates the origin of something; as, Skt. dūrt < dūród, ‘from far
away’.
The locative is often found; as, péruti, in the previous year (cf. Skt. párut, Gk.
peruse, Ir. uraid, M.H.G. vert), témesi, in the dark (cf. Skt. támas, Lat. temere,
‘blindly’), domoi, at home (cf. Gk. oíkoi, Lat. domi), dhghjesi, yesterday (cf. Skt.
hyás, Alb. dje, Gk. khthés, Lat. herī, O.Ir. in-dé, Goth. gistra-), etc.
The instrumental is found in diwḗ, during the day, noqtī, during the night (cf.
Skt. dívā, O.C.S. nošĭjo i dĭnĭjo).
NOTE. Jasanoff (2003) also considers to have found the remains of an allative (Lat. quō
<*kwoH2(e) ‘whither’).

8.4. PREPOSITIONS
8.4.1. Prepositions were not originally distinguished from adverbs in form or
meaning, but have become specialised in use. Originally postpositions, most
eventually became prepositions, being its original placement attested in Anatolian,
Indo-Iranian, Sabellic, and sometimes in Latin and Greek.
NOTE. They developed comparatively late in the history of language. In the early stages of
the Proto-Indo-European language the cases alone were probably sufficient to indicate the
sense, but, as the force of the case-endings weakened, adverbs were used for greater
precision. These adverbs, from their common association with particular cases, became
prepositions; but many retained also their independent function as adverbs.

275
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

8.4.2. Prepositions are regularly used either with the accusative or with the oblique
cases.
8.4.3. Some examples of common PIE adverbs/prepositions are:
ad, to, by, near; cf. Lat. ad, Goth. at.
ambhí, on both sides, around; cf. O.Ind. abhí, Gk. amphi, amphis, Lat. am, amb-
, Gaul. ambi, O.Ir. imb-, O.H.G. umbi (as Eng. by, Ger. bei).
ana, to; on, over, above. Cf. O.Ind. ána, Gk. ánō, aná, Goth. ana, O.C.S. na.
antí, opposite, in front. Cf. O.Ind. ánti, átha, Gk. antí, Lat. ante, Goth. and, Lith.
añt; Hitt. ḫanti.
apo, po, from; out. Cf. O.Ind. ápa, Gk. apo, aps, apothen, Lat. ab, abs, po- Goth.
af, Slav. po-.
apóteri, behind.
au-/we-, out, far. Cf. O.Ind. áva, vi-,Lat. au-, uē-, Gk. au, authi, autár, O.Ir. ó,
ua, Toc. -/ot-, O.C.S. u.
dē/dō, from, to . Cf. Skt. -d, Lat. dē, O.Ir. dí, O.C.S. -da. Also behind O.H.G.
zādal.
deks(í), at the right side. Cf. Skt. dákṣiṇa-, Lith. dēšinas, Gk. deksiós, deksíteros.
ek(sí) (<*h1egh-s-), out. Cf. Gk. ek(s), Lat. ex, Gaul ex-, O.Ir. ess-.
ektós, except.
en(i)/ṇ, in. Cf. O.Ind. ni, nis, Gk. en, ení, Lat. in, Goth. in, Lith. in, O.C.S. on, vŭ.
enter, between, within, inside; cf. Skt. antár, Lat. inter, O.Ir. eter, O.H.G. untar,
Alb. ndër.
entós, even, also.
epi, opi, pi, on, upon, by, at, towards here, around, circa. Cf. Gk. epi, opi, pi,
O.Ind. ápi, Av. áipi, Lat. ob, op-, -pe, Osc. úp-, Gmc. ap-, ep-, Arm. ev, Lith. ap-,
O.Ir. iar, ía-, ei-, Alb. épërë, etc.
eti, even, also; over. Cf. O.Ind. áti, átaḥ, at, Gk. eti, Lat. et, Goth. iþ, O.C.S. otŭ.
kṇta, by, along, down. Cf. Hitt. katta, Gk. káta, O.Ir. cét, O.W. cant. Perhaps
from kom.
ko(m), together, with; near. Cf. Lat. cum, Ir. co, Goth. ga-.
meta, between, with. Cf. Gk. méta, Goth. miþ, Ger. mit.

276
 8. Particles

ṇdhos, ṇdher(í), down, under. Cf. Av. aϑairi, O.Ind. ádhaḥ, ádhara-, Lat. infra,
inferus, Goht. undar, Gmc. under-.
ṇdhi, more, over. Cf. O.Ind. ádhi, Gk. éntha.
ni, downward, down, under. Cf. Skt. ní, O.C.S. ni-zŭ, , and also in the word for
‘nest’, ni-sd-o- (from sed-, sit).
níteros, down, below, inferior. Cf. Skt. nitáram, O.H.G. nidar, Eng. nether, etc.
obhi, bhi, in the middle; around, from, to, etc. Cf. Lat. ob ‘towards, to’, O.Ind.
abhi, Av. aiwi, Goth. bi.
ólteri, beyond.
per(i), over, around, through. Cf. O.Ind. pári, Gk. péri, Lat. per, O.Pruss. per,
Alb. për.
perti, through, otherwise.
pos/posti/pósteri, behind.
poti, toward, cf. Av. paiti, Gk. póti.
pósteri, afterwards.
postrōd, backwards.
pra, next to.
prāi, at the front, in front, ahead. Cf. O.C.S. prědŭ, Lat. prae.
priteri, along(side).
pro, in front, opposite; before; forwards, ahead. Cf. O.Ind. prá, Gk. pró, Lat.
prōd-, O.Ir. ro-, Goth. fra (Eng. from), O.Pruss. pra, pro, Lith. pra.
próteri, in front of.
pros, before, ahead. Cf. Skt. purás, Gk. páros. Maybe here Goth. faúra (Eng. for).
proti, (over) against. Cf. Skt. práti, O.C.S. protivŭ, Gk. próti, pros.
rōdhí, because (of).
sṇi, sṇeu, without. Cf. Skt. sanu-tár, Toch. sne/snai, Gk. áneu, Lat. sine, O.Ir.
sain.
NOTE. The preposition for ‘separately, without’ is found reconstructed as locative *sn̥ah2i
(Klingechmitt), dative *sn̥h2-éi, locative of a collective *sn̥h2-éh2-i (Hackstein), and directive
snai (Peters).
sṇter(i), separately, Cf. Gk. áter, M.H.G. sunder.
som, together. Cf. Skt. sám, O.C.S. sŭ, Lith. sam-.

277
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

trās, trāntis, through. Cf. Skt. tirás, O.Ir. tar, Lat. trans, O.Ir. tre. From the same
root Goth. þairh.
ud(sí), on high. Cf. Skt. úd, O.C.S. vy-, Goth. ūt (Ger. aus).
upér(i), on, over, above. Cf. O.Ind. upári, Gk. hupér, Lat. s-uper. O.Ir. for, Goth.
ufar, Arm. (i) ver.
upo, under, down, below. O.Ind. úpa, Gk. hupó, Lat. s-ub, O.Ir. fo, Goth. uf.
wī, separately.
NOTE. Further information e.g. in <http://eprints.ucm.es/tesis/fll/ucm-t26697.pdf>.

8.5. CONJUNCTIONS
8.5.1. Conjunctions, like prepositions, are closely related to adverbs, and are either
petrified cases of nouns, pronouns and adjectives, or obscured phrases: as, jod, an
old accusative. Most conjunctions are connected with pronominal adverbs, which
cannot always be referred to their original case-forms.
8.5.2. Conjunctions connect words, phrases or sentences. They are divided in two
main classes, coordinate and subordinate.
8.5.3. Coordinates are the oldest ones, which connect coordinated or similar
constructions. Most of them were usually put behind and were normally used as
independent words. They are:
i. Copulative or disjunctive, implying a connection or separation of thought as well
as of words; as, -qe, and, -wē, or, toqe, also, joqe, atqe, and, itaqe, and also,
neqe, nor, enim, and.
NOTE 1. Postpositive particles were placed directly after the word (or first word of the
phrase or clause) that was being conjoined or disjoined; -qe, it can be put once or twice; cf.
Lat. arma uirumque canō, ‘Arms and the man I sing’, Lat. senātus populusque ‘the senate
and the people’, Skt. devś ca ásurās ca, ‘Gods and Asuras’, Gk. patḗr andrõn te theõn te
‘father of men and gods’. The same can be said of -we, cf. Skt. náktaṃ vā dívā vā, ‘during
the night or during the day’.
NOTE 2. For PIE neqe, compare Lat. ne-que, Gk. οὕ-τε, Arm. o-c, O.Ir. nó, nú, Welsh ne-
u, O.Bret. no-u, Alb. a-s, Lyc. ne-u, Luw. na-pa-wa, and for PIE mēqe, in Greek and Indo-
Iranian, but also in Toch. ma-k and Alb. mo-s. The parallel newe is found in Anatolian, Indo-
Iranian, Italic and Celtic dialects.

ii. Adversative, implying a connection of words, but a contrast in thought: as,

ma, but, auti, or, autim, perti, otherwise, ati, but, ōd, and, but, ektós,
excepted.

278
 8. Particles

NOTE. Adversative conjunctions of certain antiquity are at(i) (cf. Goth. adh-, Lat. at, Gk.
atár), (s)ma/(s)me (cf. Hitt.,Pal. ma, Lyd. -m, Lyc. me, Gk. má, mé, Messap. min), auti (cf.
Lat. autem, aut, Gk. aute, authis, autis, autár), ōd, and, but (cf. O.Ind. ād, Av. (ā)at, Lith.
o, Sla. a), etc. In general, the oldest IE languages attested use the same copulative
postpositive conjunctions as adversatives, their semantic value ascertained by the context.

iii. Causal, introducing a cause or reason: as, nam, for.

iv. Illative, denoting an inference: as, tori, therefore, ar, thus, therefore, ita,
swāi, so, ṇdha, then, s(w)eike, thus.
8.5.4. Subordinates connect a subordinate or independent clause with that on
which it depends. They were introduced in PIE generally with relative clauses. The
(rare) conjunctions that could have subordinate value included:
a. jō/jōd, how, as; jod/qod, that; jāwod, so long as; all have a general
subordinate value, usually relative, final or conditional.
NOTE. For common derivatives of PIE jo, related to the relative pronoun, compare for jod,
qod, that, Skt. yád, Gk. hó, hóti, Lith. kàd, Lat. quod, Goth. þat-ei; for jō, jōd, how, as, Skt.
yd, Av. yā, Gk. hō(s), Myc. jodososi /jō-dōsonsi/ ‘as they shall give’; for jāwod cf. Skt.
yavt, Gk. hẽos>héōs; for -jo (probably replaced by -qe) Hitt. -a/-ya, Toch. -/yo.

b. Conditional, denoting a condition or hypothesis; as, mān, if, ei, in that case,
nemān, unless, sēd, sni, apart.

NOTE. For ei, possibly related to i-, hence to jo, cf. Goth. -ei, Gk. eí, O.C.S. i, Lat. s-ī.
c. Comparative, implying comparison as well as condition; as, mān, as if.

d. Concessive, denoting a concession or admission; as, eti, even, an, perhaps,

au, howbeit, although, perom, besides.
NOTE. For eti, even, and, cf. Lat. et, Gk. eti, maybe nasalised ṇti in Germanic und-, as
Goth., Eng. and.
e. Temporal: as, antí, prāi, before, pos(ti), after.

g. Final, expressing purpose; as, uta, in order that, ne, that not.

h. Causal, expressing cause; as, jodqid, because.

279
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

8.6. INTERJECTIONS
Interjections are natural exclamations of pain, surprise, horror and so forth, and
they are onomatopoeic in nature.
These are the most common IE interjections, not taking into account pure
examples of onomatopoeia, like boom! and the like (from Beekes 1995, Mallory–
Adams 2007):
ā (surprise, pain); cf. Skt. ā, Lith. (a)à, Gk. ã, Lat ā, ah, Goth. o.
ai (surprise, pity); cf. Skt. e, ai, Av. āi, Lith. aī, ai, Gk. aí, aiaĩ, Lat. ai.
bhā, truly; cf. Av. bā(t), Lith. bà, Gk. phḗ. Cf. also bhod, Hitt. pat (Kloekhorst
2008), Pol. bo.
bheu, bhū (pain); cf. Gk. pheu, phū, Lat. fū, fī.
ē (exclamation, vocative-particle); cf. Skt. , Lith. é, Gk. ẽ, Lat. eh (ē-castor ‘by
Castor’); perhaps O.H.G. nein-ā ‘oh no’;
ō (exclamation, vocative-particle); cf. Gk., Lat. ō, O.Ir. á,a, Lith., Goth. o, Eng. oh.
eheu (complaint); cf. Skt. aho, Lat. eheu.
ha (surprise); cf. Skt. ha, Gk. hā, Lat. hā, M.H.G. ha.
ha ha (laughter); cf. Skt. ha ha, Russ. xa xa, Gk. hà há, Lat. hahae, N.H.G. ha ha.
Compare khákhatnos, laugh, and the verb Skt. kákhati, C.S. xoxotati, Arm xaxank
‘laughter’, Gk. kakházō, Lat. cachinnō, O.H.G. kachazzen, suggesting that one may
have laughed kha kha! earlier in PIE (Beekes 1995).
wai! woe, alas! (grief); cf. Latv. wai, Arm. vay, Lat. vae, O.Ir. fáe, W. gwae,
Goth. wai, Eng. woe. Lat. vae victis ‘woe to the vanquished’.

280
 PART III
SYNTAX
Like Pāṇini, we haven’t made – and probably couldn’t make – any conventional selection
of the proper IE syntax, since “[t]o do so explicitly and incontrovertibly would be difficult in
any language, given several ways of expressing the same idea and various other ways of
expressing closely similar ideas” (Coulson 2003). We have nevertheless collected some
studies on the common PIE syntax, with examples attested in the older dialects, so that the
natural means of expression of Proto-Indo-Europeans – their principles and parameters
(Chomsky-Lasnik 1993) – are properly exposed, for the learner to adopt the correct setting.

The most comprehensive summary available on PIE morphosyntax was written by

Matthias Fritz in Indo-European Linguistics (Michael Meier-Brügger, 2003), pp. 238-276.
The most comprehensive, widely referenced work on sentence syntax is still Winfred
Philipp Lehmann’s Proto-Indo-European Syntax (1974). It has been made available online
for free at the University of Texas at Austin – Linguistics Research Center
<http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/books/pies00.html>.
Excellent recent works on syntax include Benjamin W. Fortson IV Indo-European
Language and Culture (2004), pp. 137-153, and James Clackson’s Indo-European linguistics
(2007), pp. 157-186.
Their texts have been adapted to this grammar, omitting specialised comments, references
to academic articles, or the source of examples in the different old IE languages, so that any
reader interested in further information on IE syntax should read the original works.

Collection of texts arranged and adapted by Carlos Quiles

 9. Morphosyntax

9. MORPHOSYNTAX
9.1. VERBAL MORPHOSYNTAX
In addition to its lexical meaning, the finite verb consists of grammatical
categories, which are in turn composed of the following five dimensions: person,
number, mode, tense-aspect, and diathesis.
There are three categories of number (singular, dual and plural), four modes
(indicative, imperative, subjunctive, optative), three tense-aspects (present, aorist,
perfect), and three voices (active, middle, passive).

9.1.1. PERSON
1. There are three dimensions in person, classified according to classical
grammarians: In the singular, the first person indicates the speaker; the second, the
person to whom he speaks; and the third, that about which one speaks.
The first person refers to an object thought of as animated, whether a human being
or not. The second person refers to the being or object thought of as listening. The
third person may indicate living beings or objects.
The 1st plural may indicate that there is more than one speaker, and the 2nd plural
that there are more than one listener, but they could refer to the speaker or listener
as groups (M. Fritz 2003).
NOTE. “The distinction between the inclusive first person plural (‘we’, i.e. including the
speaker, his group, and the listener) and exclusive first person plural (‘we’, i.e. the speaker
and his group, without the inclusion of the listener) cannot be reconstructed as Proto-Indo-
European. That which is true of the plural, also applies to the dual” (M. Fritz 2003)

9.1.2. TENSE-ASPECT AND MOOD

TENSE-ASPECT
The Proto-Indo-European tense-aspect system shows three common formations:
perfect or stative stem (expressing a state of being), present or imperfective stem
(depicting ongoing, habitual or repeated action), and aorist or perfective stem
(depicting a completed action or actions viewed as an entire process). In the
indicative mood the present or imperfect stem was conjugated in two tenses:
present and past.
NOTE. In the post-Proto-Indo-European period, there were, aside from the languages that
continued the use of the subjunctive, various other means of expressing future actions,
including a new future stem formation, v.s. §7.4.2. Periphrastic future was express by means

283
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

of an auxiliary verb, usually meaning “become” in North-West IE, while Hittite had “come”
o “go” (cf. Hitt. uwami/paimi) + present. Vedic had also a form in -tar- (nomen agentis) +
copula.
Examples (Fritz 2003):
a) Present: Lat. aperiuntur aedes ‘the house is opened’; Gk. nóston dízdnai
meliēdéa ‘You seek honey-sweet homecoming’, Ved. dákṣiṇśvam dákṣiṇā gṃ
dadāti ‘the Dakṣiṇā gives a steed, the Dakṣiṇā gives a cow’.
b) Imperfect: Lat. nam ego ibam ad te ‘for I came to you’; Gk. mála gàr kraterōs
emákhonto ‘for they fought very hard’.
c) Aorist: Gk. tón rh' ébale prō̃tos ‘It was him that he hit first’; Ved. rayíṃ ca
putrm̐ś cādād ‘He gave riches and sons’.
d) Perfect: Lat. servos es, liber fuisti ‘A slave you are; free you have been’; Gk. kakà
dè khroḯ eímata eĩmai ‘I clothe bad garment on my skin’; Ved. apó rireca ‘he
released the water’.
INDICATIVE
The indicative is used for statements to which the speaker lends validity: By using
the indicative, the speaker gives his statement the character of a true statement.
Whether or not the contents of the statements in fact correspond to reality, is of
course uncertain (M. Fritz 2003).
Examples – Gk. epí khthonì baínei ‘(s)he runs on the earth’; Ved. candrámā
apsvàntár  suparṇó dhāvate diví ‘the beautifully winged moon runs in the waters
across the sky’.
IMPERATIVE
According to M. Fritz (2003), the imperative holds a special place in the verbal
paradigm, “similar to that in the nominal paradigm occupied by the vocative, which
is equally directed to a listener, and with which the imperative shares the formal
characteristic of having a singular form which is composed of the stem without an
ending, with no sign of its connection to the sentence.”
Examples – Lat. habe bonum animum ‘have good courage’; Gk. áll’ áge mímnete
pántes ‘come now, stay’; Ved. tm̐ indra sáhase piba ‘Drink this, oh Indra, for
strength’.
SUBJUNCTIVE AND OPTATIVE
“According to Delbrück’s investigations of fundamental notions (Ai. Syntax 1888),
the subjunctive mood expresses a will, while the optative mood expresses a wish. It

284
 9. Morphosyntax

is important to note that the will or the wish (as the case may be) that is meant is
that of the speaker, and not that of the subject, or, more precisely stated, that of the
actor that is designated by the nominative form. The wish of the subject was
originally expressed through its own derivational verbal form, namely, the
desiderative” (M. Fritz 2003).
1. The subjunctive, which originally indicates the future, has three main functions
(Mendoza 1998):
• In its voluntative function, it indicates the will of the speaker; as, Gk. mḗpō
ekeîse íōmen lit. ‘not-yet there-to we-should-go’; Ved. sá devn éhá vaksati
lit. ‘(that) he the-gods here should-bring’.
• In its deliberative function, it indicates the deliberation of the speaker; as, Gk.
pē̑i gàr… íō lit. ‘where-to, then…I-shall-go?’; Ved. kath mahé rudríyāya
bravāma lit. ‘how from-the-great-court of-Rudra we-shall-talk?
• In its prospective function, it serves to express things that happen in the
future; as, Gk. ei de’ ke mē ̀ dṓōsin, egō ̀ dé ken autos hélōmai ‘if Ptc. Ptc. they-
give not (to me), I Ptc. Ptc. myself will-take (it)’ .
According to M. Fritz (2003), “the subjunctive is used to express his will when he
considers that it is within his power to bring about the verbal action. A declaration
of will in a strict sense is only possible when the speaker has direct influence on
events, such that that which is desired may also be executed. This means that a true
expression of will may only be in the first person singular, while all other cases are
equally requests. If the first person subjunctive is taken as a request made of oneself,
a connection to the second and third person subjunctive is possible in which the
speaker has no direct influence on the realization of the verbal action, so that the
statement may only be understood as a request. A further connection may be made
with the 1st person plural, in which the speaker communicates his own will, and at
the same time directs a request to others.”
Examples (Fritz 2003):
a) 1 sg.: Lat. quod perdundumst properem perdere ‘what may be lost, I will/want
to hurry up and lose’; Gk. áll’ áge oí kaì egṑ dō̃ kseínion ‘thus I will/want to give a
gift of welcome also to him’; Ved. purāṇ vāṃ vīryā̀ prá bravā jáne, ‘your earlier
heroic deeds I will/want to announce to all people’; Ved. prá nú vocā sutéṣu vām
‘On the occasion of the pressing, I thus will/want to announce the heroic deeds of
both of you’.

285
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

b) 1 pl.: Gk. nũn dè mnēsṓmetha dórpou ‘now we will/want to think about the
meal’; Ved. svastáye vāyúm úpa bravāmahai ‘We will/want to call to Vaayu for the
sake of welfare’.
c) 2nd person: Lat. taceas ‘you should remain silent’; Ved. abh ṣú naḥ sákhīnām
avit jaritr̥̄nm satám bhavāsi ūtíbhiḥ ‘you, oh helper of the singer’s friends,
will/should protect us well with a hundred helps’.
d) 3rd person: Lat. sed uti adserventur magna diligentia ‘but they should be
guarded with great care’; Gk. oú gár tís me bíēi ge hekō ̀ n aékonta díētai ‘For none
will/should force me to leave against my own will’; Gk. kaí poté tis eípēisi kaì
ópsigónōn anthrṓpōn ‘and one day, even one of the descendants will say’; Ved. sá
sunvaté ca stuvaté ca rāsate ‘who will/should give both to him who presses, and to
him who prizes’; Ved. sá no víśvāni hávanāni joṣad ‘That man will/should be
friendly and take receipt of all our sacrifices’.
2. The optative, which originally indicates possibility, has three functions
(Mendoza 1998):
• A desiderative function, expressing the wish of the speaker; as Gk. eíth hōs
hēbṓoimi lit. ‘I-wish that I-would-be-young’; Ved. ahám prathamáḥ pibeyam
lit. ‘I the-first want-to-drink’.
• An exhortative function; as, Gk. kē̑rúks tís hoi hépoito lit. ‘(that) herald one
him accompanies’.
• A potential function expressing possibility or potentiality; as, Gk. nûn gár ken
héloi pólin lit. ‘now really ptc can-take the-city’.
According to M. Fritz (2003), “when the optative is used to express a wish, the
speaker indicates that he is not directly able to bring about the verbal action. The
optative proves to be more uniform that the subjunctive, given that in its cupitive
function, the optative, independently of the category of person, always indicates a
simple wish of the speaker, regardless of his influence on the realization of the verbal
action.”
Examples of the potential function: – Lat. nec me miserior femina est neque ulla
videatur magis ‘a more miserable woman than myself does not exist, and will most
probably never be seen’; Lat. roget quis ‘one might ask’; Gk. oú tis keínon anḕr
alalḗmenos elthṑn’ alléllōn peíseie gunaĩká te kaì phílon huión ‘a man, who comes
travelling with news of that, could not convince his son and the woman’; Ved. víśvo

286
 9. Morphosyntax

devásya netúr márto vurīta sakhyám ‘each mortal will likely desire the friendship
of the leading god’.
Examples of the desiderative function:
a) 1st person: Gk. nũn dè kléos esthlón apoímēn ‘and now I would like to wrest
noble fame’; Ved. víśvābhir gīrbhír abhí pūrtím aśyām ‘by all songs, I would like to
obtain fulfillment’; Ved. syméd índrasya sármani ‘we would like to be under
Indra’s protection’.
b) 3rd person: Lat. ut illum di deaeque senium perdant ‘that elder is the one that
the gods and the goddesses would like to ruin’; Gk. humĩn mèn theoì doĩen ‘to you
indeed, the gods like to give’; Gk. all’autou gaĩa mélaina’ pãsi khánoi ‘the black
earth should open to all precisely here’; Ved. deváṃ vo devayajyáyāgnim īḷīta
mártyaḥ ‘the mortal should praise your god Agni through worship’.
In terms of content, the similarity between the prospective function of the
subjunctive and the potential function of the optative is evident in the comparison
of Gk. kaí poté tis eípēisin ‘one day, someone will say’ and Gk. kaí poté tis eípoi ‘one
day, someone will in all likelihood say’.

9.1.3. VOICE
1. Active and middle voices are distinguished formally by their endings, see above.
NOTE. According to Fortson (2004), “in traditional grammatical usage, active means that
the subject is doing the action rather than being acted upon, while middle means the subject
is either acting upon itself or is in some other way “internal” to the action. This rough
guideline works reasonably well for verbs that could inflect in either voice (…) But in many
other cases, the distinction between active and middle inflection was purely a formal one:
there were some verbs that inflected only in the active and others only in the middle, without
clear difference in meaning. Verbs having only middle inflection are often called middle
verbs. (Students familiar with Latin can think of these as equivalent to the Latin deponent
verbs – active in meaning but having only passive endings, which come historically from the
PIE middle.).”
For Clackson (2007): “Combining the functions of the middle in opposition to the active
and the semantics of the lexical stems which are associated with the middle, we can say
something of the prototypical use of the middle, which appears to be dependent on how
speakers view the semantic role of the subject. The middle is the voice used to denote that
the subject is in some way affected by the verbal action. Thus, for transitive verbs the active
typically represents the subject as the actor, and the middle represents the subject as the
undergoer. For intransitive verbs the middle is preferred when there is some notion of
control over the verbal action (hence the middle inflection of ‘think’ and ‘speak’), but if the

287
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

verb denotes an event or action where the participant cannot have control, the active is used
(thus ‘be’, ‘vomit’ and ‘wait’).”
3. The function of the category ‘passive’, which appears in many IE languages, but
did not exist as a grammatical category in Proto-Indo-European, was performed by
the middle voice (Fritz 2003, Fortson 2004, Clackson 2007). The various IE
languages that feature a passive voice each formed it independently from each other
(Fritz 2003).

9.2. NOMINAL MORPHOSYNTAX

9.2.1. NOMINATIVE
According to M. Fritz (2003), the nominative “indicates the theme of the sentence
which, in a non-marked sentence, is placed in sentence-initial position. Other
sentence elements are also thematized in taking the sentence-initial position, which,
in the non-marked sentence, is reserved for the subject.”
“The Proto-Indo-European nominative does not indicate the subject of an action
in the logical sense, but rather in the sense that appears to the observer to be bearer
and middle-point of the action that is expressed by the verb” (Delbrück 1879).
The concept of the subject is itself difficult to grasp; for H.-J. Sasse it is “a
syntactical relation with semantic and pragmatic functions… [the] sentence element
that is indicated as the subject has a doubled function as it is both pragmatic (as an
indicator of the topic of the sentence) and semantic (as an identifier of the agent).
This double-function finds expressing in its syntactical characteristics (Sasse, 1982).

9.2.2. VOCATIVE

According to M. Fritz (2003), the vocative is the nominal form that is used for
addressing a listener. There is only a distinct vocative in the singular, and even then,
not all nominal paradigms feature a separate vocative form. Where there is no
separate vocative, its function is taken by the nominative. The same occurs when
two actions of addressing are linked: While the first is in the vocative, the second is
in the nominative. – Examples: Gk. Zdeũ páter…Ēéliós th’ ‘Oh father Zeus (voc.) …
and Helios (nomin.)’; Ved. ágna índraś ca ‘Oh Agni (voc.) and Indra (nomin.)’.
NOTE. On the vyav índraś ca construction, Fortson (2004): “It was apparently a rule of
PIE grammar that when two vocatives were conjoined, the one preceding the conjunction
was put in the nominative rather than the vocative case. Almost all the examples of this come
from Vedic, as in the phrase vyav índraś ca “o Indra and Vayu” after which the construction
is named. In this example, the god Vayu’s name is in the vocative but Indra's is in the

288
 9. Morphosyntax

nominative, as it precedes the conjunction ca ‘and’. The sole example outside Indo-Iranian
is from an archaic passage in the Iliad” already seen, Zdeũ páter…Ēéliós th’.

i. The vocative element in the sentence receives no accent. – Example: Ved. asmé
ū ṣú vrṣ̥ aṇā mādayethām ‘Enjoy yourselves nicely, you two heroes, in our
company’.

ii. In Old Indian, when the vocative forms a sentence of its own, and is thus in
sentence-initial position, it receives stress, regardless of its normal nominal accent,
on its first syllable, i.e. on the first syllable of the sentence. In this case, sentence
stress is meant and not word stress. – Example: Ved. dévā jvata ‘Gods! Live!’

9.2.3. ACCUSATIVE
According to M. Fritz (2003), the accusative has the following functions:
a) Accusative of direction: it expresses that the verbal action bears an orientation
in terms of space; as, Gk. érkhesthon klisíēn ‘go both of you to your tent’; Gk. hósoi
keklḗato boulḗn ‘who where summoned for consultation’; Ved. yad múkhaṃ
gachaty áthodáraṃ gachati ‘if it goes to the mouth, then it goes to the stomach’.
b) Accusative of extent: is further used to express spatial or chronological expanse;
as, Lat. noctem in stramentis pernoctare ‘to pass one night in the straw’; Gk. douròs
erōḗn ‘at a spear throw’s distance’; Gk. kheĩma ‘in the winter’; Ved. saptádaśa
pravyādhn ājíṃ dhāvanti ‘they run a race for a distance of seventeen times the
range of one shot’; Ved. só asvatthé saṃvatsarám atiṣṭhat ‘he remained in the
Asvattha (tree) for one year’.
c) Accusative of relation: it expresses the relation of the verbal action to a referent
in a non-spatial sense; as, Lat. indutum…pallam ‘clothed in a dress’; Gk. melaíneto
dè khróa kalón ‘and she was reddened on her beautiful skin’; Ved. nàinaṃ kr̥tākr̥té
tapataḥ ‘neither things done, nor things undone hurt this one’.
d) Object accusative: it indicates the direct object in the case of transitive verbs;
as, Ved. jíghran vái tád ghrātávyaṃ ná jighrati ‘truly smelling, he smells not what
is to be smelled’.
e) Accusative of content: used when the contents of a verb are additionally
expressed through a noun which appears in the accusative; as, Lat. quod bonis bene
fit beneficium ‘which charitable act is well direct to the good’; Gk. álloi d’ ámph’
állēisi mákhēn emákhonto néessin ‘here and there they fought the fight for the
ships’; Ved. yád ymaṃ ynti vāyúbhiḥ ‘when they go the way with the winds’.

289
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

9.2.4. INSTRUMENTAL
According to M. Fritz (2003), the instrumental case indicates that which
accompanies the verbal activity. This meaning forms the basis from which other
meanings have developed:
a) Instrumental of accompaniment: in the case of a person, it indicates that the
person executes, or helps to execute the action; as, Lat. postquam utrimque exitum
est maxuma copia ‘after they marched up in great numbers on both sides’; Gk.
enthád’ hikáneis nēí te kaì hetároisi ‘you arrive here with the ship and the
companions’; Ved. devó devébhir  gamat ‘the god should come here with the gods’;
Ved. víśvair ū́mebhir  gahi ‘come here with all helpers’; Ved. divá stave duhit
gótamebhiḥ ‘the daughter of the heavens is prized by the Gotamas’.
b) Instrumental of means: in the case of inanimate objects, the instrumental
indicates the means by which the verbal action is executed; as, Lat. neque etiam
queo / pedibus mea sponte ambulare ‘and I cannot even walk around independently
on my own feet’; Lat. vehimur navi ‘we sail with the ship’; Gk. kephalē̃i kataneúsō
‘I will nod with my head’; Gk. péteto pnoiē̃is anémoio ‘he flew with a breath of the
wind’; Ved. śatáṃ cákṣāṇo akṣábhiḥ ‘the god that sees with a hundred eyes’; Ved.
nāvéva yntam ‘as to those who go with the ship’.
c) Instrumental of route: Lat. nemo ire quemquam publica prohibet via ‘no one
hinders another from walking on a public street’; Lat. terra marique ‘on earth and
sea’; Ved. antárikṣeṇa pátatām ‘which fly in the air’; Ved. éhá yātam pathíbhir
devaynaiḥ ‘comes this way on divine paths’; Ved. mitrásya yāyām path ‘I would
walk on Mitra’s path’.
d) Instrumental of constitution: Lat. amphoram defracto collo ‘an amphora with
a broken neck’; Myc. ti-ri-po e-me po-de i.e. tripos hemē podē ‘a tripod with one
leg’; Ved. dym iva stŕ̥bhiḥ ‘like the heavens with the stars’.
e) Instrumental of accompanying circumstances: in the indication of temporal
circumstances, the instrumental bears a resemblance to the temporal locative; as,
Gk. tetiēóti thumō̃i ‘with a worried temperament’; Gk. phthóngōi eperkhómenai
‘coming forward with noise’; Ved. út sū́ryo jyótiṣā devá éti ‘up comes the divine sun
with light’; Ved. índram  viśa br̥hat ráveṇa ‘go to Indra with great noise’.
f) Instrumental of reason: Lat. nam mihi horror membra misero percipit dictis
tuis ‘for fright seizes from poor me my limbs because of your words’; Gk. gēthosúnēi
‘out of joy’; Skt. sá bhīṣ ní lilye ‘he hid himself out of fear’.

290
 9. Morphosyntax

g) Instrumental of comparison: Lat. qui omens homines supero antideo

cruciabilitatibus animi ‘I, who supersede all men, surpass in tortures of the heart’;
Gk. eurúteros d’ ṓmoisin ‘wider, however, than the shoulders’.

9.2.5. DATIVE

According to M. Fritz (2003), the dative had the following uses:

a) Relational dative: when used to indicate people, the dative indicates an actor or
actors who receive (action; [indirect] object dative) or possess (state; possessive
dative); as, Lat. nullan tibi lingua est? ‘have you no tongue?’; Lat. tibi me exorno ut
placeam ‘I adorn myself for you, in order to please’; Lat. quoniam vox mihi prope
hic sonat? ‘what voice thus sounds for me so near?’; Lat. nunc tibi amplectimur
genua ‘now we shall seize your knees’; Lat. mihi quidem atque oculis meis ‘indeed
for me and my eyes’; Gk. hoí d’ ḗnteon allḗloisin ‘and they met one another’; Gk.
tō̃ide d’ egṑn autòs thōrḗksomai ‘and for this one I will arm myself’; Gk. autoùs dè
helṓria teũkhe kúnessin ‘and he gave them to the dogs as prey’; Gk. mēdé moi
hoútōs’ thũne ‘do not rage so to me’; Gk. toĩsi dè thumòn enì stḗthessin órine ‘and
he stirred the soul in their chests’; Gk. daímosin eĩnai alitrós ‘to be a sinner to the
gods’; Ved. dádhāti rátnaṃ vidhaté…mártyāya ‘he distributed wealth to the
devoted mortal’; Ved. devn devayaté yaja ‘sacrifice to the gods for the worshipper
of gods’; Ved. átithis crur āyáve ‘a dear guest for the son of Āyu’.

b) Dativus finalis: when applied to abstract nouns, the dative indicates that the
noun is the goal of an action; as, Lat. ut quaestui habeant male loqui melioribus
‘that they have it as a gain, that they speak badly of their betters’; Lat. khármēi
prokaléssato ‘he called out to battle’; Lat. ūrdhvás tiṣṭhā na ūtáye ‘be there upright
to support us’.

9.2.6. ABLATIVE
According to M. Fritz (2003), the ablative expresses the place of origin of the
verbal action. Accordingly, the ablative is principally featured when a locatum
moves, or is moved, away from a relatum. Its functions include:
a) Ablative of place of origin: refers to a spatial idea, relating to separation, which
is accompanied by a movement away; as, Lat. primus cubitu surgat ‘he gets up out
of bed first’; Lat. cunctos exturba aedibus ‘drive all from the house’; Gk. neō̃n mèn

291
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

ekhṓrēsan ‘they retreated from the ships’; Gk. ouk án dḕ tónd’ ándra mákhēs
erúsaio ‘could you not push this man from the fight?’; Ved. īyúr gvo ná yávasād
ágopāḥ ‘they went like cows from the field without a herdsman’; Ved. tváṃ
dásyūm̐r ókasa agna ājaḥ ‘you, oh Agni, drive the Dasyus from their homeland’.
b) Ablativus originis: it is used to indicate the object in relation to which a
compared object differs; as, Lat. quo de genere natust ‘from which family he
originates’; Ved. śukr kr̥ṣṇd ajaniṣṭa ‘the shining one was born from the
darkness’; Ved. ásataḥ sád ajāyata ‘from the non-being came the being forth’.
c) Ablativus separativus: Gk. oút’ oũn esthē̃tos deuḗseai ‘and you will not lack in
clothing’; Gk. mēdé m’ éruke mákhēs ‘do not hold me back from battle’.
d) Ablativus comparationis: Lat. levior pluma est gratia ‘thanks is lighter than a
feather’; Gk. eĩo khérēa mákhēi ‘worse than he in battle’; Gk. polú glukíōn mélitos
‘much sweeter than honey’; Ved. svādóḥ svdīyo ‘sweeter than sweets’; Ved.
sáhasaś cid sáhīyān ‘stronger even than the strong’.

9.2.7. GENITIVE
According to M. Fritz (2003), the genitive had the following functions:
a) Partitive: in its partitive root meaning the genitive expresses that a part is meant
of the noun in the genitive case; as, Lat. modius…salis ‘a scoop of salt’; Gk. lōtoĩo
phagṓn ‘eating of lotus’; Gk. ēoũs ‘in the morning’.
b) Genitivus qualitatis: Lat. lauri folia ‘leaves of the laurel’; Gk. kṓpē d’ eléphantos
epē̃en ‘a handle of ivory was on it’.
c) Genitivus possessivus: Lat. patris amicus ‘the father’s friend’; Gk. Diós Ártemis
‘Artemis (daughter) of Zeus’; Gk. patrós d’eím’ ágathoĩo ‘and I am (the son) of a
noble father’.
d) Genitivus relationis: it is used in comparisons to indicate that with which
something is compared; as, Lat. monstri … simile ‘similar to a miracle’; Gk. ḕ
trípodos peridṓmethon ēè lébētos ‘both of us are betting a tripod and a basin’; Gk.
ḗpsato goúnōn ‘she touched the knee’.
The genitive may often replace other cases without expressing their meaning; it
lends an additional partitive meaning to the meaning that the expected case would
have brought

292
 9. Morphosyntax

9.2.8. LOCATIVE
According to M. Fritz (2003) , the locative had these uses:
a) Locative of place: the local meaning of the locative is not limited to a certain
part of the object, but rather may just as well pertain to its interior, exterior, or
environment; Lat. homo idem duobus locis ut simul sit ‘that the same man should
be in two places at the same time’; Gk. aithéri naíōn ‘living in the heavens’; Gk. ésti
dé tis nē̃sos méssēi alí ‘there is an island in the middle of the sea’; Gk. óreos koruphē̃i
‘on the peak of the mountain’; Gk. eũt’ óreos koruphē̃isi Nótos katékheuen omíkhlēn
‘as when Notos (=the south wind) pours fog down from the mountain top’; Ved.
mádhye … samudré ‘in the middle of the sea’; Ved.  yó víśvāni vryā vásūni
hástayor dadhé (lit. who all desirable-ACC. goods-ACC. hand-LOC-DU put-PERF-
3-sg-med.) ‘who holds all treasures that one could desire to have in his own hands’;
Ved. áhann áhim párvate śiśriyāṇám ‘he smote the dragon that had occupied the
mountain’; Ved. párvatasya pr̥ṣṭhé ‘on the back of the mountain’; Ved.
sárasvatyāṃ revád agne didīhi ‘shine beautifully on the Sarasvati (river) oh Agni’;
Ved. tásmin ní jahi vájram ‘Strike him with the cudgel!’.
b) Locativus temporalis: when the noun indicates, e.g. a unit of time, the use of
the locative only reveals the original spatial metaphor that underlies the concept of
a temporal relation; as, Lat. tempore uno ‘at one time’; Gk. ṓrē ‘in the spring’; Gk.
ḗmati tō̃i ‘on this day’; Ved. yáṃ devsas trír áhann āyájante ‘whom the gods
summon three times a day’.
c) Locativus conditionis: the spatial idea may be carried over to the most various
circumstances; as, Ved. vidáthe santu devḥ ‘the gods should be present at the
sacrifice’; Ved. víśve devā havíṣi mādayadhvam ‘all of you gods amuse yourselves
at the pouring of libations’.

9.2.9. CASE FORMS: ADVERBIAL ELEMENTS

Nonmandatory case forms are found in great variety, as may be determined from
the studies of substantival inflections and their uses. Five groups of adverbial
elements are identified: (1) circumstance, purpose, or result; (2) time; (3) place; (4)
manner; (5) means (Lehmann 1974).

293
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

CIRCUMSTANCE, PURPOSE OR RESULT

Additional case forms may be used to indicate the purpose, result, or circumstance
of an action. So e.g. the instrumental in Skt. mr̥ḷáyā naḥ suastí ‘Be gracious to us
for our well-being’ (Lehmann 1974).
The dative was commonly used in this sense, as in the infinitival form Skt. prá ṇa
yur jīváse soma tārīḥ ‘Extend our years, soma, for our living [so that we may live
long]; Hitt. nu-kan mNana-Luin kuin DUMU.LUGAL ANA mNuwanza haluki para
nehhun ‘and the prince NanaLUiš whom I sent to Nuwanza to convey the message’
where Hittite dative noun haluki ‘message’ (Raman 1973).
When an animate noun is involved, this use of the dative has been labelled the
indirect object; as, Skt. riṇákti kr̥ṣṇ raṛuṣya pánthām (lit. he-yields black to-
ruddy path) ‘Black night gives up the path to the red sun’.
NOTE. As these examples may indicate, the dative, like the other cases, must be interpreted
with reference to the lexical properties of the verbal element.

TIME
A further adverbial segment in sentences indicates the time of occurrence. The
cases in question are various, as in Skt. dívā náktaṃ śárum asmád yuyotam ‘By
day and during the night protect us from the arrow’. The nominal form dívā ‘by day’,
which with change of accent is no longer an instrumental but an adverbial form
outside the paradigm, and the accusative náktaṃ ‘during the night’ differ in
meaning. The instrumental, like the locative, refers to a point in time, though the
“point” may be extended; the accusative, to an extent of time. Differing cases
accordingly provide different meanings for nouns marked for the lexical category
time (Lehmann 1974).

PLACE
According to Fritz (2003), “The Proto-Indo-European cases with local meaning
are the locative, accusative, and the ablative. These cases designate a general spatial
relationship between two objects, which include places (which are concrete objects)
and actions (in which concrete persons or objects participate). The locative simply
organizes spatially. With the accusative and the ablative, the concept of direction
comes into play, with each indicating an opposing direction: The accusative
indicates that the verbal action is oriented toward the object referent; the ablative
indicates that the verbal action is oriented away from the object referent. These local

294
 9. Morphosyntax

dimensions then serve – in a process of transfer that is itself the result of cognitive
reflection – equally to describe temporal relations and other circumstances.”
A. The accusative indicates the goal of an action, as in Lat. Rōmam īre ‘go to Rome’,
Hitt. tuš alkištan tarnahhe ‘and those (birds) I release to the branch’ (Otten and
Souček 1969).
B. The instrumental indicates the place “over which an action extends” (Macdonell
1916): sárasvatyā yānti ‘they go along the Sarasvatī’.
C. The ablative indicates the starting point of the action: sá ráthāt papāta ‘he fell
from his chariot’; and the following example from Hittite (Otten and Souček 1969):
iššaz (š)mit lālan AN.BARaš [d]āi ‘He takes the iron tongue out of their mouths’.
D. The locative indicates a point in space, e.g., Skt. diví ‘in heaven’ or the locative
kardi ‘in heart’, in the following Hittite example (Otten and Souček): kardi-šmi-i̯a-
at-kán dahhun ‘And I took away that [illness which was] in your heart’.
Nouns with lexical features for place and for time may be used in the same
sentence, as in Skt. ástam úpa náktam eti ‘He goes during the night to the house’.
Although both nouns are in the accusative, the differing lexical features lead to
different interpretations of the case. In this way, inflectional markers combine with
lexical features to yield a wide variety of adverbial elements.

MANNER
Among the adverbial elements which are most diverse in surface forms are those
referring to manner. Various cases are used, as follows (Lehmann 1974).
A. The accusative is especially frequent with adjectives, such as Skt. kṣiprám
‘quickly’, bahú ‘greatly’, nyák ‘downward’.
B. The instrumental is also used, in the plural, as in Skt. máhobhiḥ ‘mightily’, as
well as in the singular, sáhasā ‘suddenly’.
Similar to the expression of manner is the instrumental used to express the sense
of accompaniment: Skt. devó devébhir gamat ‘May the god come [in such a way
that he is] accompanied by the other gods’.
C. The ablative is also used to express manner in connection with a restricted
number of verbs such as those expressing ‘fear’: réjante víśvā kṛtrímāṇi bhīṣ ‘All
creatures tremble fearfully’.

295
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

MEANS
Adverbial expressions of means are expressed especially by the instrumental; as,
Skt. áhan vṛtrám ... índro vájreṇa ‘Indra killed ... Vr�tra with his bolt’. The noun
involved frequently refers to an instrument; cf. Hitt. kalulupuš šmuš gapinit
hulaliemi (lit. fingers their with-thread I-wind) ‘I wind the thread around their
fingers’.
Animate nouns may also be so used. When they are, they indicate the agent:
agnínā turváṣaṃ yáduṃ parāváta ugr devaṃ havāmahe ‘Through Agni we call
from far Turvasa, Yadu, and Ugradeva’. This use led to the use of the instrumental
as the agent in passive constructions (Lehmann 1974).

296
 10. SENTENCE SYNTAX
10.1. THE SENTENCE
A sentence is a form of words which contains a statement, a question, an
exclamation, or a command.
The fundamental order of sentences in PIE appears to be OV. Support for this
assumption is evident in the oldest texts of the materials attested earliest in the IE
dialects. Examples of this include the following, from Fortson (2004): Hitt. nu=za
MUŠilluyankaš DIM-an taraḫta ‘And the serpent overcame the Stormgod’; Ved.
maruto ha enam na ajahuḥ ‘Indeed the Maruts did not abandon him’; Lat.
Eumolpus tanquam litterārum stūdiōsus utīque ātrāmentum habet ‘Eumolpus, so
interested in learning, surely has (some) ink’; Runic ek hlewagastiz holtijaz horna
tawido ‘I, Hlewagastiz of Holt, made (this) horn’; Toch. A. kāsu ñom-klyu tsraṣiśśi
śäk kälymentwaṃ sätkatar ‘Good fame of the strong spreads out in ten directions’.
NOTE. Lehmann (1974): “The fundamental order of sentences in these early dialects
cannot be determined solely by frequency of sentence patterns. For, like other linguistic
constructions, sentence patterns manifest marked as well as unmarked order. Marked order
is expected in literary materials. The documents surviving from the earliest dialects are
virtually all in verse or in literary forms of prose. Accordingly many of the individual
sentences do not have the unmarked order, with verb final. For this reason conclusions about
the characteristic word order of PIE and the early dialects will be based in part on those
syntactic patterns that are rarely modified for literary and rhetorical effect: comparative
constructions, the presence of postpositions and prepositions, and the absence of prefixes
(…).”
Lehmann is criticised by Friedrich (1975) who, like Watkins (1976) and Miller (1975),
support a VO prehistoric situation, probably SVO (like those found in ‘central’ IE areas), with
non-consistent dialectal SOV findings. In any case (viz. Lehmann and Miller), an older PIH
OV (VSO for Miller), as attested in Hittite, would have been substituted by a newer VO (SOV
for Miller, later SVO through a process of verb transposition) – thus, all Indo-European
dialects attested have evolved (therefore probably from a common post-Proto-Indo-
European trend) into a modern VO.

Fortson (2004): “Part of the problem with it is arriving at a clear definition of a verb-final
language. In the strict sense, a verb-final language is one where the verb always comes at the
end of each clause unless other factors intervene. The only well-known older PIE language
that meets this criterion is Hittite. No matter what the genre, no matter how stylistically
marked the text, the verb in Hittite is always clause-final, with one exception – when it is
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

fronted to the beginning of the clause for emphasis or contrast (…). None of the other old IE
languages behaves so rigidly (…); there is essentially no position in the clause (on the surface
at least) where the verb cannot appear.
It is usually stated that in these languages, the pragmatically neutral order is SOV. This
may, in fact, be true, at least of some of them (such as Latin); but with so many word-order
permutations possible (and frequent), clearly they cannot be called “verb-final” in the same
way as Hittite. There are any number of reasons, according to current theory, why a verb may
or may not appear as the last word in its clause.”
Clackson (2007): “The investigation of PIE word order in terms of rigid SVO and SOV
patterns was rightly criticised as a ‘pseudo-problem’ by Watkins in a much-cited article of
1976. It would be wrong, however, to think that because word order cannot be expressed in
terms of strict SOV or SVO patterns it is somehow unimportant, or that it was free. If PIE
were a ‘non-configurational’ language, with completely freeword order, we would still have
to explain why the unmarked place of the verb is sentence-final in Hittite, Sanskrit and Latin,
and why word comparisons which reflect original juxtapositions of noun and dependent
genitive agree in showing the order genitive – head noun (…) Agreements such as these could
lead to the conclusion that the unmarked order was SOV for the PIE sentence, and head-final
for the PIE noun phrase. But variation from these patterns is widely attested, particularly in
poetic or highly stylised texts, which make up a large part of our corpus of many early IE
languages.”

10.1.1. KINDS OF SENTENCES

1. PIE sentences were either nominal, i.e. formed by nouns, or verbal, if they
included a verb.
2. Sentences are formed by a subject and a predicate. The subject of a sentence is
the person or thing spoken of. The predicate is that which is said of the subject.
a. The subject is usually a noun or pronoun, or some word or group of words used
as a noun. However, because the personal endings of verbs encode the subject in
them, it is not grammatically necessary to use an overt personal pronominal subject
in addition. When subject pronouns occur, it is usually said that its use is emphatic
(Fortson 2004); as, Lat. sīcutī ego accēpī ‘as I understand it’ (Sallus, Bellum
Catilinae 6.1), where ‘I’ serves to contrast his own understanding with the opinion
of others.
However, in nominal sentences, an overt pronominal subject is generally required
for clarity; as, O.Pers. adam navama, ‘I (am) the ninth’.
The syntax of possessive swos, own, is treated by Fortson (2004): “Reflexive
adjectives (and pronouns) refer back to the grammatical subject of a sentence. But
the possessive “swo-” had broader usage, to judge by the daughter languages: it

298
 10. Sentence Syntax

could refer back not to the grammatical subject, but to newly introduced discourse
material or to an older topic that is returned to. As an example of the former,
consider Ved. tráya índrasya sómaḥ sutsaḥ santu devásya své kṣáye sutapvnaḥ
‘Let the three somas be pressed for the god Indra in the soma drinker’s own house’
(translation following Brent Vine; soma was an intoxicating sacred drink). Here the
grammatical subject is tráya. .. sómaḥ ‘the three somas’ and the possessive své
refers to the soma-drinker, who is newly introduced. Similar behavior can be found
in other older IE languages.”
b. The predicate of a sentence may be a verb (as the dog runs), or it may consist of
some form of esmi, be, and a noun or adjective which describes or defines the
subject (as It is good). Such a noun or adjective is called a predicate noun or
adjective.
3. In Proto-Indo-European, simple sentences may be composed of only one word,
a noun or a verb; as, ‘God!’ or ‘(it) rains’.
NOTE 1. Nominal sentences of this type are usually interjections and vocatives. Verbal
sentences of this type include imperatives (at least of 2nd sg.) and impersonal verbs, which
had never a subject in the oldest dialects attested; as, for Eng. (it) rains, cf. Goth. rigneiþ,
Lat. pluit, Gk. ὓει, Skt. várṣati. It is believed that when IE dialects became SVO in structure,
so that a subject was required, the third singular anaphoric pronoun, corresponding to it,
German es, French il, etc., was introduced as subject in such sentences. Such pronouns were
introduced because SVO languages must have subjects in sentences, as do intransitive verbs
in any OV language. Such verbs could be supplemented by substantives in various cases,
among them the accusative. These constructions are especially prominent for verbs referring
to the emotions; as, Skt. kitaváṃ tatāpa (lit. with-regard-to-the-gambler there-is-pain) ‘it
pains the gambler’, Lat. miseret, pudet, taedet ‘It makes one pitiful, ashamed, bored’.
Compare also Cicero’s Lat. eōrum nōs miseret (lit. ‘of-them us it-makes pitiful/there-is-pity’)
‘we feel pity for them’ or O.H.G. thes gánges thih nirthrúzzi (lit. ‘of-the way you may-there-
not-be-weariness’) ‘Do not let yourself be wearied of the way’. In PIE sentences various case
forms could be used with verbs. The simplest sentences may consist of verbs accompanied
by nouns in seven of the eight cases; only the vocative is not so used. The nouns fill the role
of objects or, possibly better stated, of complements (Lehmann 1974).
NOTE 2. Besides the simple sentence which consists only of a verb, a simple sentence in
the early dialects and in PIE could consist of a verb accompanied by a noun or pronoun as
complement. A subject however wasn’t mandatory. Nor were other constructions which may
seem to be natural, such as indirect objects with verbs like ‘give’. The root *dō- or in its earlier
form *deH- had in its simplest sense the meaning ‘present’ and was often unaccompanied by
any nominal expression (Lehmann 1974).

299
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

10.1.2. NOMINAL SENTENCE

1. Nominal sentences, in which a substantive is equated with another substantive,
an adjective, or a particle, make up one of the simplest type of sentence in PIE.
Such a type of sentence is found in almost every IE dialect; cf. (Lehmann 1974)
Hitt. attaš aššuš ‘the father (is) good’, Skt. tváṃ váruṇa, ‘you (are) Varuna’, O.Pers.
adam Dārayavauš ‘I (am) Darius’, Gk. emoì d’ ákhos ‘and to me (there is) pain’,
Lat. omnia praeclara rara ‘all the best things (are) rare’. Apart from a noun or
adjective, the predicate could be an adverb; as, Hitt. mŠippa-LÚ-iš=wa=kan ŪL
anda ‘Sippazitis (is) not in (it)’; Gk. metà dè glaukō̃pis Athénē ‘and Athena of
glaucous eyes (was) with (them)’.
In all dialects, however, such sentences were restricted in its use to a especially
formal use or, on the contrary, they are found more often than originally in PIE.
Thus, in Latin and Germanic dialects they are found in proverbs and sayings, as in
Old Irish; in Greek it is also found in epic and poetry. In Balto-Slavic dialects the
pure nominal sentence has become the usual type of nominal sentence, even when
the predicate is an adverb or an adverbial case. However, such a use, which is more
extended in modern dialects (like Russian) than in the older ones (as Old Slavic), is
considered the result of Finno-Ugrian influence. (Lehmann 1974).
2. An action, state, or event could be syntactically backgrounded using a
construction called an absolute. Typically the absolute consisted of a noun modified
by a participle – semantically equivalent to a subject plus verb – in an oblique case
(Fortson 2004).
Thus Latin has ablative absolutes (hīs rēbus gestīs lit. ‘these things having been
done’, i.e. ‘after these things were done’ or ‘because these things were done’), Greek
has genitive absolutes (Homeric aékontos emeĩo ‘with me being unwilling’, pàr
émoige kaì hálloi hoi ké mé timḗsousi, ‘near me (there are) others who [particle]
will praise me’), Vedic Sanskrit has locative absolutes (ucchántyām uśási ‘with
dawn shining forth’, or havyaír agnír mánuṣa īrayádhyai, ‘Agni must be prayed
with the sacrifices of men’,), and Gothic and Old Church Slavonic have dative
absolutes (Goth. imma rodjandin and O.C.S. jemu glagoljǫščemu ‘with him
speaking, while he is/was speaking’).
NOTE. PIE surely had such constructions too, although which case or cases were used is
debated.

300
 10. Sentence Syntax

3. In addition to such expansions by means of additional nouns in nonrequired

cases, sentences could be expanded by means of particles.
NOTE. For Lehmann (1974), three subsets of particles came to be particularly important.
One of these is the set of preverbs, such as ā. Another is the set of sentence connectives, such
as nu. The third is the set of qualifier expressions, e.g., PIE nē/mē ‘(must) not’. An
additional subset, conjunctions introducing clauses, will be discussed below in the section
on compound clauses. Preverbs are distinctively characterised by being closely associated
with verbs and modifying their meaning. In their normal position they stand directly before
verbs (Watkins 1964).
Generally, thus, concordance governed both members of the pure nominal
sentence. Unlike the personal verb and its complements (governed by inflection),
the nominal sentence showed a strong reliance on concordance between subject and
predicate as a definitory feature: both needed the same case, and tended to have the
same number and gender (Lehmann 1974).
THE COPULATIVE VERB
Nominal sentences are not always simple clauses without copula; examples are
found with an explicit copula with stylistic and semantic change (Ramat 1993): Hitt.
LÚ.ULÙ.LU=ku GUD=ku UDU=ku ēšzi ‘whether he is man or ox or sheep’.
The copulative verb esmi is only necessary when introducing late categories in the
verbal morphology, like time and mood. Therefore, when the mood is the indicative,
and the time is neuter (proverbs without timing, or present with semantic neuter)
there is no need to use esmi.
NOTE. The basic form of nominal sentences has been a matter of dispute. Some Indo-
Europeanists propose that the absence of a verb in nominal sentences is a result of ellipsis
and assume an underlying verb esmi (Benveniste 1950). They support this assumption by
pointing to the requirement of such a verb if the nominal sentence is in the past tense; cf.
Hitt. ABU.I̯A genzuu̯alaš ešta ‘My father was merciful’. On the contrary, Meillet (1906-
1908), followed by Lehmann (1974) and Mendoza (1998), consider that nominal sentences
did not require a verb but that a verb might be included for emphasis. This conclusion may
be supported by noting that the qualifiers which were found in PIE could be used in nominal
sentences without a verb. As an example we may cite a Hittite sentence which is negative and
imperative, 1-aš 1-edani menahhanda lē idāluš ‘One should not be evil toward another one’.
Yet, if a passage was to be explicit, a form of esmi could be used, as in Skt. nákir indra tvád
úttaro ná jyyāṅ asti “No one is higher than you, Indra, nor greater’.
Fritz (in Meier-Brügger 2003): “Nominal phrases are not simply verbal phrases without a
finite verb (with what is called ellipsis of the copula), but rather constitute an independent
type of clause. Thus, the predicate noun in nominal phrases is always stressed, unlike the
verbal predicate in verbal phrases. In fact the term ‘elipsis’ is not exact, since the copula is

301
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

not essential. Contrarily, the use of the copula should rather be seen as an adaptation to the
common pattern of verbal phrases, which always feature a finite verb form. This use of the
copula is in fact a sort of explicative signification, in which the content of the copula is
expressed through the connection of the various sentence elements and is given particular
emphasis alone through an independent linguistic symbol of comparable meaning.”
On the original meaning of esmi, since Brugmann (1925) it is reconstructed as
‘exist’ hence its use as a copulative verb through constructions in which the
predicate express the existence of the subject, as in Hom. Gk. eím’ Odusseús
Laertiádēs, hós… ‘I am Odisseus, son of Laertes, the one who…’ (Mendoza 1998).

10.1.3. VERBAL SENTENCE

The simplest structure of the common Indo-European sentence consists of a verb,
i.e. the carrying out of an action. In it, none of the verbal actors (subject and object)
must be expressed – the subject is usually not obligatory, and the object appears
only when it is linked to the lexical nature of the verb.
NOTE. The oldest morphological categories, even time, were expressed in PIE through
lexical means, and remains are found of such a system; cf. Hitt. -za (reflexive), modal
particles in Gk. and O.Ind., modal negation in some IE dialects, or the simple change in
intonation, which made interrogative or imperative a declarative sentence – in fact, the
imperative lacks a mark of its own.
The relationship between the subject and the object is expressed through the case.
There is no clear morphological distinction between transitive and intransitive
verbs in Proto-Indo-European.
NOTE. Some Indo-European dialects have specialised certain verbal suffixes as transitives
(causatives) or intransitives, as Gk. -en, Gmc. -io, Lat. -a, etc., while in some others a preverb
combined with a verbal root makes the basic verb transitive or intransitive.
When subjects are explicitly expressed, the nominative is the case employed.
NOTE. Expression of the subject is the most prominent extension of simple sentences to
include more than one substantival expression. Apart from such explicit mention of the
subject, predicates may consist of verbs accompanied by two or more nouns, in cases which
supplement the meanings of the verbs (see below). Such constructions must be distinguished
from the inclusion of additional nouns whose case forms indicate adverbial use.
PREDICATES WITH TWO OR MORE SUBSTANTIVES
Few verbs are mandatorily accompanied by two nouns (Lehmann 1974):
1. The use of the dative in addition to the accusative. This is made almost obligatory
with verb dō-, give; as in Skt. tbhiām enaṃ pári dehi (lit. those-two-DAT. him-

302
 10. Sentence Syntax

ACC. over you-give), ‘Give him over to those two’; Gk. dō̑ra phérein tō̑i patrí ‘give
presents to the father’ (Mendoza 1998).
2. The instrumental and ablative, as Skt. áhan vr̥trám ... índro vájreṇa ‘Indra
killed ... Vṛitra with his bolt’; Skt. tváṃ dásyūm̐r ókaso agna ājaḥ ‘You drove the
enemies from the house, O Agni’.
NOTE. While the addition to these sentences which is indicated by the nouns in the
instrumental and the ablative is essential for the meaning of the lines in their context, it does
not need to be included in the sentence for syntactic reasons.
3. The causative accompanied by two accusatives, as Skt. devn̐ uśataḥ pāyayā
havíḥ (lit. gods desiring you-cause-to-drink libation) ‘Make the desiring gods drink
the libation’.
In such sentences the agent-accusative represents the object of the causative element: as
Arthur A. Macdonell indicated (1916), in a corresponding simple sentence this noun would
have been given in the nominative, as Skt. dev havíḥ pibanti ‘The gods drink the libation’.
Accordingly a simple verb in PIE was at the most accompanied by one substantive,
unless the additional substantive was complementary or adverbial.

10.2. SENTENCE MODIFIERS

10.2.1. INTONATION PATTERNS

1. According to Fritz (in Meier-Brügger 2003), with regard to sentence accent, one
may note that the word that begins the sentence is stressed. Sentence-initial
position implies the function of establishing the topic: In nominative language, the
subject in sentence-initial position is considered the normal, unmarked type. In
interrogative sentences, the nominal element, about which the question is asked,
establishes the theme. It is thus the interrogative pronoun that begins the sentence
NOTE. An enclitic is added as a second word in the sentence; a further enclitic is added as
a third word. This is known as the (Delbrück-)Wackernagel Law, see §10.6.4.
2. The sentence was characterised in PIE by patterns of order and by selection
(Lehmann 1974):
A. Selection classes were determined in part by inflection, in part by lexical
categories, most of which were covert.
NOTE. Some lexical categories were characterised at least in part by formal features, such
as abstract nouns marked by -ti-, nouns in the religious sphere marked by -u- and collectives
marked by *-h.

303
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

B. In addition to characterisation by means of order and categories of selection,

the sentence was also delimited by intonation based on variations in pitch.
2. To the extent that the pitch phonemes of PIE have been determined, a high pitch
may be posited, which could stand on one syllable per word, and a low pitch, which
was not so restricted.
Words were characterised on one syllable by a high pitch accent, unless they were
enclitic, that is, unmarked for accent.
3. Accented words could lose their high pitch accent if they were placed at specific
positions in sentences:
A. Vocatives lost their accent if they were medial in a sentence or clause; and finite
verbs lost their accent unless they stood initially in an independent clause or in any
position in a dependent clause in Vedic. These same rules may be assumed for PIE.
On the basis of the two characteristic patterns of loss of accent for verbs,
characteristic patterns of intonation may also be posited for the IE sentence.
B. Judging on the basis of loss of high pitch accent of verbs in them, independent
clauses were characterised by final dropping in pitch. For in unmarked order the
verb stands finally in the clause; as, purodhm evá gacchati (lit. priesthood verily
he-attains) ‘He attains the priesthood’.
C. In marked order on the other hand it stands initially. H. S. Ananthanarayana
investigated the accent patterns in accented Vedic texts, particularly in the Taittirīya
Brāhmaṇa, and concluded on the basis of the interpretation of sentences with
similar lexical material that sentences with initial verb are marked.
Thus, in contrast with the previous example, the following indicates “emphasis”
of the verb (Ananthanarayana 1970): gácchati pratiṣṭhm ‘He attains stability’
Since gacchati in the other example has no high pitch accent, and since other such
sentences have a similar distribution of accents, it may be concluded that sentences
with normal, unmarked meaning have a final lowered pitch accent. This might be
indicated with #.
Clauses, however, which are marked either to convey emphasis or to indicate
subordination, do not undergo such lowering. They may be distinguished with final
|| (Ananthanarayana 1970): yát stríyam upeyt || nírvīryas syāt # (lit. if woman
he-may-approach impotent he-may-become) ‘If he were to approach a woman, he
might become impotent’.

304
 10. Sentence Syntax

The intonation pattern indicated by # apparently conveyed the notion of a simple,

nonemphatic utterance, whether a statement, question, or command: kásmai nú
satrám āsmahe # (lit. why indeed sacrifice we-perform) ‘Why should we perform
sacrifice?’
The intonation pattern indicated by || apparently conveyed the notion of an
emotional or emphatic utterance or one requiring supplementation, as by another
clause. These conclusions are supported by the patterns found in Germanic
alliterative verse. For, as is well known, verbs were frequently placed by poets in the
fourth, nonalliterating, metrically prominent position in the line: þeodcyninga
þrym gefrūnon (lit. of-people’s-kings glory we-heard-of) ‘We heard of the glory of
the kings of the people’.
This placing of verbs, retained by metrical convention in Germanic verse,
presumably maintains evidence for the IE intonation pattern. For, by contrast, verbs
could alliterate when they stood initially in clauses or in subordinate clauses; egsode
eorlas, syððan ǣrest wearð (lit. he-terrified men since first he-was) ‘He terrified
men from the time he first was [found]’; þenden wordum wēold wine Scyldinga (lit.
as-long-as with-words he-ruled the-friend of-the-Scyldings) ‘As long as the friend
of the Scyldings ruled with his words.’
The patterns of alliteration in the oldest Germanic verse accordingly support the
conclusions that have been derived from Vedic accentuation regarding the
intonation of the Indo-European sentence, as do patterns in other dialects.
D. Among such patterns is the preference for enclitics in second position in the
sentence (Wackernagel 1892). Words found in this position are particles, pronouns,
and verbs, which have no accent in Vedic texts. This observation of Wackernagel
supports the conclusion that the intonation of the sentence was characterised by
initial high pitch, with the voice trailing off at the end. For the enclitic elements were
not placed initially, but rather they occupied positions in which unaccented portions
of words were expected, as in Skt. prāvep mā bṛható mādayanti, ‘The dangling
ones of the lofty tree gladden me’. The pronoun mā ‘me’, like other such enclitics,
makes up a phrase with the initial word; in this way it is comparable to unaccented
syllables of individual words, as in Skt. pravātej íriṇe várvṛtānāḥ (lit. in-windy-
place on-dice-board rolling) ‘[born] in a windy place, rolling on the dice-board’.

10.2.2. SENTENCE DELIMITING PARTICLES

1. The particles concerned are PIE nu, so, to, all of them introductory particles.

305
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

Their homonymity with the adverb nu, nun and the anaphoric pronoun was one
of the reasons earlier Indo-Europeanists failed to recognise them and their function.
Yet Delbrück had already noted the clause-introducing function of Skt. sa (1888),
as in Skt. tásya tni śīrṣṇi prá cicheda. (lit. his the heads off he-struck) sá yát
somapnam sa tátaḥ kapíñjalaḥ sám abhavat (lit. Ptc. what soma-drinking it-was
from-that hazel-hen [grouse] together it-became] ‘He struck off his heads. From the
one that drank soma, the hazel-hen was created’. Delbrück identified sa in this and
other sentences as a particle and not a pronoun, for it did not agree in gender with
a noun in the sentence. But it remained for Hittite to clarify the situation.
In Hittite texts the introductory use of the particles is unmistakable (J.Friedrich
1960); ta and šu occur primarily in the early texts, nu in the later, as illustrated in
the following Old Hittite example (Otten and Souček 1969): šer-a-ššan GAD-an
pešiemi šu- uš LÚ-aš natta aušzi (over-and-Ptc. cloth I-throw Ptc.- them man not
sees) ‘I throw a cloth over it and no one will see them’ (Lehmann 1974).
2. Besides such an introductory function (here as often elsewhere translated ‘and’),
these particles were used as first element in a chain of enclitics, as in n-at-ši ‘and it
to-him’, nu-mu-za-kan ‘and to-me self within’ and so on.
In Homeric Greek such strings of particles follow different orders, but reflect the
IE construction, as in: oudé nu soí per entrépetai phílon êtor, Olúmpie (lit. not-
indeed and to-you but it-turns ‘dear’ heart Olympian) ‘But your heart doesn’t notice,
Zeus’. As the translation of per here indicates, some particles were used to indicate
the relationships between clauses marking the simple sentence (Lehmann 1974).
3. Many simple sentences in PIE would then be similar to those in Hittite and
Vedic Sanskrit. Among the simplest is Skt. tám índro didveṣa ‘Indra hated him’.
Presumably tam is a conflated form of the particle ta and the enclitic accusative
singular pronoun; the combination is attested in Hittite as ta-an (J. Friedrich 1960).
Similar examples from the other early dialects could be cited, such as the Italic
inscription of Praeneste, or the Germanic Gallehus inscription: Ek HlewagastiR
HoltijaR horna tawido, ‘I, Hlewagastir of Holt, made the horn’. In these late texts,
the subject was mandatory, and accordingly two nominal forms had come to be
standard for the sentence. If however the subject is not taken into consideration,
many sentences contained only one nominal element with verbs, in the early dialects
as well as in PIE (Lehmann 1974).

306
 10. Sentence Syntax

10.3. VERBAL MODIFIERS

10.3.1. DECLARATIVE SENTENCES

1. The injunctive has long been identified as a form unmarked for mood and
marked only for stem and person. It may thus be compared with the simplest form
of OV languages.
By contrast the present indicative indicates “mood”. We associate this additional
feature with the suffix -i, and assume for it declarative meaning.
2. As Lehmann (1974) says, “Yet it is also clear that, by the time of Vedic Sanskrit
and, we assume, Late PIE, the injunctive no longer contrasted directly with the
present indicative. We must therefore conclude that the declarative qualifier was
expressed by other means in the sentence. We assume that the means of expression
was an intonation pattern. For, in normal unmarked simple sentences, finite
unaccented verbs stood finally in their clause, as did the predicative elements of
nominal sentences; Delbrück’s repeatedly used example may be cited once again to
illustrate the typical pattern: víśaḥ kṣatríyāya balíṃ haranti ‘The villagers pay
tribute to the prince’. Since the verb haranti was unaccented, i.e., had no high pitch,
we may posit for the normal sentence an intonation pattern in which the final
elements in the sentence were accompanied by low pitch.”
Lehmann (1974) supports this assumption by noting that a distinctive
suprasegmental was used in Vedic to distinguish a contrasting feature,
interrogation or request (Wackernagel 1896). This marker, called pluti by native
grammarians, consisted of extra length, as in ágnā3i ‘O fire’ (3 indicates extra
length). But a more direct contrast with the intonation of simple sentences may be
exemplified by the accentuation of subordinate clauses. These have accented verbs,
as in the following line from the Rigveda: antáś ca prgā áditir bhavāsi ‘If you have
entered inside, you will be Aditi’. As the pitch accent on ágā indicates, verbs in
subordinate clauses maintained high pitch, in contrast with verbs of independent
clauses like bhavāsi. We may conclude that this high pitch was an element in an
intonation pattern which indicated incompleteness, somewhat like the pattern of
contemporary English.
3. Evidence from other dialects supports the conclusion that, in late PIE,
declarative sentences were indicated by means of an intonation pattern with a drop
in accentuation at the end of the clause.

307
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

NOTE. In Germanic verse, verbs of unmarked declarative sentences tend to occupy

unaccented positions in the line, notably the final position (Lehmann 1956). Although the
surface expression of accentuation patterns in Germanic is stress, rather than the pitch of
Vedic and PIE, the coincidence of accentuation pattern supports our conclusions concerning
PIE intonation.

10.3.2. INTERROGATIVE SENTENCES

1. The interrogation was apparently also indicated by means of intonation, for
some questions in our early texts have no surface segmental indication
distinguishing them from statements, for example, Plautus Aulularia 213, aetatem
meam scis, ‘Do you know my age?’.
NOTE. Only the context indicates to us that this utterance was a question; we may assume
that the spoken form included means of expressing interrogation, and in view of expressions
in the later dialects we can only conclude that these means were an intonation pattern.
2. Questions are generally classified in two groups:
• Those framed to obtain confirmation, yes/no questions
(Bestätigungsfragen). This feature accompanies statements in which a
speaker sets out to elicit information from the hearer.
• Those framed to obtain clarification (Verdeutlichungsfragen).
3. Yes/no questions (Bestätigungsfragen) were made (Clackson 2007):
a) By an intonation pattern alone, as noted above. That is the reconstruction
favoured by most of those who have addressed the issue (Delbrück 1893-1900,
Meier-Brügger 2003), because of the finds in Hittite and Vedic Sanskrit. It might
therefore be considered one of the oldest means to express interrogation of any type,
including yes/no questions. This is most probably the older situation in PIE.
b) Disjunctive questions can be formed by juxtaposition of a verb with a negated
verb, as in the following example of Vedic Sanskrit prose text (3 indicates extra
length): chinátti s ná chinattī3 [cuts she not cuts pluti] ‘Does she divide or not?’..
NOTE. For Clackson (2007): “These different reconstructed hypotheses are not mutually
exclusive: it is possible that different types of ‘yes-no’ question formation existed alongside
each other in PIE. Indeed, systems of marking through intonation exist alongside other
systems in many languages of the world. In French, for example, there are three different
ways of forming ‘yes-no’ questions: Il vient?, Est-ce qu’il vient? and Vient-il? all mean ‘Is he
coming?’.”
c) By an interrogative affix or particle. Such means of expression for interrogation
are found in most IE languages, apparently from a late development, since the
particles used are different. Two of them have been reconstructed for PIE, though:

308
 10. Sentence Syntax

i. The particle nu, found in Greek and Vedic Sanskrit as interrogative particle, is
also extremely widely used in non-interrogative sentences in Hittite, as well as in
Sanskrit and Greek. It was probably then mainly a S.LIE resource.
ii. Lehmann (1974), following Delbrück (1893-1900) and Eichner (1971) argues
that Lat. -ne, was the original interrogative particle, since its post-placement
accorded with the typology of OV languages, in which interrogative particles are
placed sentence finally. According to Minton Warren, it “occurs about 1100 times in
Plautus and over 40 times in Terence” (1881). Besides expressions like Lat. egone
‘Me?’, sentences like the following occur (Plautus Asinaria 884): Aúdin quid ait?
Artemona: Aúdio. ‘Did you hear what he is saying? Artemona: yes’.
Other evidence for a postponed particle for expressing interrogation is found in
Avestan, in which -na is suffixed to some interrogatives, as in Av. kas-nā ‘who
(then)?’; and in Germanic, where na is found finally in some questions in Old High
German. Old Church Slavic is more consistent in the use of such a particle than are
these dialects, as in chošteši li ‘Do you wish to?’ This particle is also used in
contemporary Russian.
The particle used to express interrogation in Latin, Avestan, and Germanic is
homophonous with the particle for expressing negation, PIE ne.
NOTE. It is not unlikely that LIE an of questions is behind same ne/ṇ particle used for the
negative. As the interrogative particle, however, it has been lost in most dialects. After
Lehmann (1974), its loss is one of the indications that late PIE was not a consistent OV
language. After Mendoza, the fact that such interrogatives of a yes/no-answer are introduced
by different particles in the oldest attested dialects means that no single particle was
generalised by Late Indo-European; cf. Goth. niu, Lat. -ne, nonne, num, Gk. ἣ, νὐ , Skt. nu,
Sla. li. However, the common findings of Hittite, Indo-Iranian, Germanic and Latin are
similar, if not the same.
4. The partial interrogative sentences are those which expect an aclaratory answer
(Verdeutlichungsfragen), equivalent to English ‘What…?’, ‘Where…?’, ‘Who…?’,
and so on. They are introduced in PIE by pronominal or adverbial forms derived
from interrogative qi-/qo-, always placed initially but for marked sentences, where
a change in position is admitted to emphasise it.
NOTE. In some languages, interrogatives may be strengthened by the addition of posposed
particles with interrogative sense, as in Av. kaš-na (<*kwos-ne). Such forms introduce
indirect interrogatives when they ask about a part of the sentence. Indirect interrogatives in
the form of total interrogatives (i.e., not of yes/no-answer) are introduced by particles
derived from direct interrogative particles (when there are) or by conditional conjunctions;
as Hitt. man.

309
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

5. According to Clackson (2007), question words are typically fronted and

followed by enclitics, as Vedic kás te mātáraṃ vidhávām acakrat (lit. who you-gen
mother-acc widow-acc he-made) ‘Who made your mother a widow?’; Vedic kásya
bráhmāni jujusur yúvānaḥ lit. ‘of whom the formulas like the-young-men?’;
Where an element precedes the question word, it makes sense to interpret this as
a left-detached element, and it appears that in Vedic Sanskrit, as in Hittite, left-
detachment does not count in the calculation of second position; as Vedic índraḥ
kím asya sakhyé cakāra (lit. Indra-nom what-acc he-gen friendship-loc he-did),
‘As for Indra, what did he do in his friendship?’; Vedic brahmā kó vaḥ saparyati
‘priest which you honors?’ See §10.6.3 for more on emphasis.

10.3.3. NEGATIVE SENTENCES

1. Indications of negation, by which the speaker negates the verbal means of
expression, commonly occupy third position in the hierarchy of sentence elements.
2. We can only posit the particles ne and mē/nē, neither of which is normally
postposed after verbs.
NOTE. For prohibitive particle mē, compare Gk. mḗ, O.Ind.,Av.,O.Pers. mā, Toch.
mar/mā, Arm. mi, Alb. mos. In other IE dialects it appears as nē, cf. Goth. ne, Lat. nē (also
as modal negation), O.Ir. ni. It is not clear whether Hitt. lē is ultimately derived from mē or
nē, although Clackson (2007) reconstructs a common Anatolian *nē, due to Luv. ni(s), Lyc.
ni. Although mē is sometimes reconstructed as the ‘original’ PIE particle, the Anatolian finds
don’t let us decide which form is older. Apparently, S.LIE and Tocharian had mē, while
Anatolian and North-West IE seem to have used nē.
PIE ne is found as Goth.,O.H.G. ni, Lat. nĕ- (e.g. in nequis) O.Ind. ná, O.Sla. ne, etc.
Sometimes it is found in lengthened or strengthened forms as Hitt. natta, Lat. non, Skt. ned,
etc. A common PIE lengthened form is nei, which appears in Lat. ni, Lith. neî, Sla. ni, etc.
3. The negative element ne was not used in compounding in PIE (Brugmann
1904); the privative prefix ṇ-, un-, had this function.
Comparative evidence suggests, following Fortson (2004), that certain classes of
words were preferentially negated not with the adverb but with the privative prefix;
among these words were participles and verbal adjectives. Greek and Latin, for
example, ordinarily use their negative adverbs when negating participles, but some
fixed archaic constructions point to an earlier time when the privative prefix was
used instead, as Homeric Gk. a-ékontos emeĩo ‘with me being unwilling, against my
will’, Lat. mē īn-sciente ‘with me not knowing’, in-uītus ‘unwilling’ (later replaced
by nōn uolēns ‘not willing’), im-prūdēns ‘not knowing beforehand’ (later nōn

310
 10. Sentence Syntax

prouidēns). Compare also Av. an-usaṇt- ‘not wanting’, Goth. un-agands ‘not
fearing’.
4. In the oldest languages, negation seems to have been preverbal; Vedic nákis,
Gk. oú tis, mḗ tis, Lat. nēmo, OHG nioman ‘no one’, and so on. If the negation has
scope over a single word or constituent, it usually directly precedes that constituent.
Sentential negation typically directly precedes the verb, as in English. But it could
also be moved toward the front of the sentence for emphasis. (Fortson 2004).
NOTE. Moreover, there is evidence for proposing that other particles were placed
postverbally in PIE (Delbrück 1897). Delbrück has classified these in a special group, which
he labels particles. They have been maintained postpositively primarily in frozen
expressions: ē in Gk. egṓnē, ge in égōge ‘I’ (Schwyzer 1939). But they are also frequent in
Vedic and early Greek; Delbrück (1897) discusses at length the use of Skt. gha, Gk. ge, and
Skt. sma, Gk. mén, after pronouns, nouns, particles, and verbs, cf. Lat. nōlo < ne volo, Goth.
nist< ni ist, and also, negative forms of the indefinite pronoun as O.Ind. m-kis, ná-kis, Lat.
ne-quis, etc. which may indicate an old initial absolute position, which could be also
supported by the development of correlative forms like Lat. neque, etc., which combine
negation and coordination. Lehmann, on the contrary, believes in an older postposed order,
characteristic of OV languages, because of the usually attributed value of emphasis to the
initial position of negation, postverbal negation examples (even absolute final position in
Hittite and Greek), the old existence of the form nei, as well as innovative forms like Lat. ne-
quis or Gk. oú-tis (Lehmann 1974).
It is therefore safe to assume that in post-LIE times negation was usually
preverbal, as in modern Romance languages (cf. Fr. n’est, Spa. no es, etc.), but it
could be placed word-initially in emphatic contexts, and it is also found postponed
in some archaic lexical or syntactic remains of the older IE languages, as it is found
in modern Germanic languages (cf. Eng. is not, Ger. ist nicht, etc.).
5. Prohibitive sentences have a different negative particle, mē/nē. The older IE
languages seem to have used the unmarked indicative (the so-called ‘injunctive’) for
prohibitions, as some relic forms in Vedic might show. In Tocharian and Hittite, the
tense-marked indicative was used. However, the tendency to replace the indicative
with the imperative in prohibitions is seen in Greek and Latin, where the imperative
became the marker of all commands, being mē/nē the modal negative.
For example, following Clackson (2007), while the ‘original’ situation would have
been cemt, he came (aorist), ne cemt, he did not come (aorist), cemje, come,
mē/nē cemjes, stop coming, this was reinterpreted and the imperative was used
instead (hence a negative particle added to the positive utterance), i.e. mē/nē
cemje, stop coming.

311
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

NOTE. Clackson (2007) continues: “Note also that several languages have opted to use
modal forms (subjunctive and optative) in prohibitions. The most likely explanation for this
is that speakers have extended the secondary functions of these modal forms, which include
marking requests, wishes and other directive expressions, to embrace negative commands as
well.”
According to Clackson (2007), some older IE languages show a difference between
inhibitives, commands to stop doing something that the hearer is engaged in, and
preventatives, commands or warnings not to do something in the future; that
differentiation is found in Indo-Iranian, Tocharian, and apparently in Celtic too.
Although the constructions differ, the Indo-Iranian differentiation could have been
the original one: the present stem forms inhibitives, while the aorist stem forms
preventatives.

10.4. NOMINAL MODIFIERS

10.4.1. ADJECTIVE AND GENITIVE CONSTRUCTIONS

1. Proto-Indo-European attributive adjectives were normally preposed.
Delbrück (1900) summarises the findings for Vedic, Greek, Latin, Lithuanian, and
Germanic, giving examples like the following from Vedic: śvetḥ párvatāḥ ‘white
mountains’. Lehmann (1974) adds an example of Hitt. šuppi watar ‘pure water’.
In marked constructions adjectives might be postposed, as in Ved. áśvaḥ śvetáḥ ‘a
white horse, a gray’.
2. The position of the attributive genitive is the same as that of the attributive
adjective. A striking example is given from the Old English legal language (Delbrück
1900): ōðres mannes hūses dura ‘the door of the house of the other man’.
3. Like the adjective construction, the attributive-genitive construction may have
the modifier postposed for marked effect, as is sómasya in Skt. kíṃ nas tátaḥ syād
íti? prathamabhakṣsá evá sómasyar jña íti (lit. what us then it-might-be Ptc. first-
enjoyment Ptc. of-soma) ‘What might then happen for us? The first enjoyment of
[Prince] Soma’. (Delbrück 1878)
NOTE 1. The relatively frequent marked use of the genitive may be the cause for the
apparently free position of the genitive in Greek and Latin. The ambivalent order may also
have resulted from the change of these languages toward a VO order. But, as Delbrück
indicates, the preposed order is well attested in the majority of dialects. This order is also
characteristic of Hittite (J. Friedrich 1960).
NOTE 2. In accordance with Lehmann’s (1974) views on syntactic structure, the attributive
genitive, like the attributive adjective, must be derived from an embedded sentence. The

312
 10. Sentence Syntax

sentence would have a noun phrase equivalent with that in the matrix sentence and would
be a predicate nominal sentence. Such independent sentences are attested in the older
dialects. Delbrück gives a number of examples, among them: Skt. aṣṭaú ha vaí putr ádites
(eight Ptc. Ptc. sons of-Aditi) ‘Aditi had eight sons’; Skt. áhar devnām sīt (lit. day of-gods
it-was) ‘Day belonged to the gods’. These sentences accordingly illustrate that the genitive
was used in predicate nominative sentences to convey what Calvert Watkins has labelled its
primary syntactic function: the sense “of belonging”. When such a sentence was embedded
in another with an equivalent NP, the NP was deleted, and the typical genitive construction
resulted. Hittite also uses s as a genitive as well as a nominative marker. For “genitives” like
haššannaššaš ‘(one) of his race’ can be further inflected, as in the accusative haššannaš-šan
‘(to one) of his race’ (J. Friedrich).
4. Fortson (2004): Common to all the older languages was the ability of nouns and
their modifiers to be separated by intervening elements, yielding what are called
discontinuous or distracted noun phrases (a construction called hyperbaton in
Greek and Latin grammar): Cuneiform Luv. alati awienta Wilušati ‘they came from
steep Wjlusa’ (KBo 4.11:46), Gk. ándra moi énnepe Moũsa polútropon ‘tell me,
Muse, of the resourceful man’ (Odyssey 1.1), Lat. magnā cum laude ‘with great
praise’, Old Irish Marta for slúaig saithiu ‘on the swarm of the host of March’ (Felire
Oengusso, March 31). Distraction of other types of phrases was common as well.
The technical details of distraction are not well understood; in some cases, it is the
result of part of a phrase being moved to a position of emphasis or contrast.

10.4.2. COMPOUNDS
1. Nominal compositum or nominal composition is the process of putting two or
more words together to form another word. The new word, called a compound word,
is either a noun or an adjective, and it does not necessarily have the same meaning
as its parts.
2. According to their meaning, compounds can be broadly classified in two types
(Fortson 2004):
a. Endocentric (or determinative), as blackbird, ‘(a type of) black bird’, when the
compound is essentially the sum of its parts, and its referent (a type of bird) is one
of the compound members itself (usually the second one, as here). Examples include
Skt. Siṃha-puras ‘Lion City’ (Singapore), Ger. Blut-wurst ‘blood sausage’.
b. Exocentric or possessive compounds (usually called bahuvrihis, see below),
illustrated by Eng. redthroat, is more than the sum of its parts and refers to
something outside itself: the referent is not a type of throat, but a type of bird

313
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

possessing a red throat. Examples include O.Ir. Fer-gus ‘hero-strength = having a

hero’s strength’, Gk. Aristó-dēmos ‘best people = having the best people’.
It is frequently said that bahuvrihis typically have o-grade of the ablauting syllable
of the second compound member. Such is indeed the case in such forms as Gk. eu-
pátōr (<su-patōr) ‘having a good father’, and Umbrian du-purs- (<dwi-pods)
‘having two feet’. These o-grades are likely to be survivals of old ablauting inflection
rather than engendered directly by the process of compounding.
3. In the derivation of compounds special compounding rules apply.
The verbal compounds in a language observe the basic order patterns, For PIE we
would expect an older OV order in compounds, as e.g. Skt. agnídh- ‘priest’ < agni
‘fire’ + idh ‘kindle.’
NOTE. A direct relationship between compounds and basic syntactic patterns is found only
when the compounds are primary and productive. After a specific type of compound becomes
established in a language, further compounds may be constructed on the basis of analogy,
for example Gk. híppagros ‘wild horse’, in contrast with the standard productive Greek
compounds in which the adjectival element precedes the modified, as in agriókhoiros ‘wild
swine’ (Risch 1944-1949). Here we will consider the primary and productive kinds of
compounds in PIE.
4. Two large classes and other minor types are found:
A. The synthetics (noun+noun), which make up the majority of the PIE
compounds:
a. Pure synthetics, i.e. noun+noun.
NOTE. While both members of the compound can be changed without a change in
meaning, some rules govern these compounds (Mendoza 1998);
- phonetic: there is a preference for a succession of high vowels – low vowels, and for
labial or labialised sounds in the second term (Wackernagel 1928).
- prosodic: the law of growing members, i.e. the tendency to place the shorter member
before the longer one; that rule is followed in dvāndvā (copulative compounds of two
names in the dual number, cf. Skt. Mitrā-Váruṇā, ‘Mitra and Varuna’, Dyvā-pr̥ṭhivī
‘sky and earth’), but also concerning paratactic members, cf. Gk. álloi mèn rha theoí te
kaì anéres híppokorustaí (Behagel 1923).
- semantic: since Krause (1922) it is believed that the most important, near and logical
notions are put in first place; i.e. compounds are subject to the principles of ‘importance’
and ‘sequence’ (Bednarczuck 1980).
b. Sinthetics in which the first element is adverbial, i.e. adverb+noun.
B. The bahuvrihis.
c. Adjective + nouns, apparently not so productive in PIE as in its dialects.

314
 10. Sentence Syntax

d. A small number of additive compounds.

5. The second term of a compound word may be then (Ramat 1993, Adrados–
Bernabé–Mendoza 1995-1998):
i) A noun (Gk. akró-polis ‘high city, citadel’)
ii) An adjective (Gk. theo-eíkelos ‘similar to the gods’) or
iii) A noun adapted to the adjectival inflection (Gk. arguró-toxos ‘silver arc’)
NOTE. Sometimes a suffix is added (cf. Gk. en-neá-boios ‘of nine cows’), and the compound
noun may have a different gender than the second term (cf. Lat. triuium ‘cross roads’, from
trēs and uia).
6. The first term is a pure stem, without distinction of word class, gender or
number. It may be an adverb, a numeral (Gk. trí-llistos ‘supplicated three times’,
polú-llistos ‘very supplicated’) or a pronoun (cf. O.Ind. tat-puruṣa ‘that man’), as
well as a nominal-verbal stem with nominal (Gk. andra-phónos ‘who kills a man’),
adjetival (Gk. akró-polis), or verbal function (Gk. arkhé-kakos ‘who begins the
evil’), and also an adjective proper (Gk. polú-tropos ‘of many resources’).
7. Usually, the first term has zero-grade, cf. O.Ind. ṇr-hán, Gk. polú-tropos, Lat.
aui-(caps), etc. Common exceptions are stems in -e/os, as Gk. sakés-palos ‘who
shakes the shield’ (Gk. sákos ‘shield’), and some suffixes which are substituted by a
lengthening in -i, cf. Gk. kudi-áneira ‘who glorifies men’ (Gk. kudrós), Av. bərəzi-
čaxra- ‘of high wheels’ (Av. bərəzant-).
In thematic stems, however, the thematic -e/o appears always, as an o if noun or
adjective (Gk. akró-polis), as an e if verb (Gk. arkhé-kakos).
8. The first term usually defines the second, the contrary is rare; the main
compound types are:
A. Formed by verbs, cf. O.Ind. ṇr-hán, Gk. andra-phónos (Gk. andro- is newer)
Lat. auceps, O.Sla. medv-ĕdĭ ‘honey-eater’, bear, and also with the second term
defining the first, as Gk. arkhé-kakos.
B. Nominal determiners (first term defines the second), with first term noun (cf.
Gk. mētro-pátōr ‘mother’s father’, Goth. þiudan-gardi ‘kingdom’), adjective (cf.
Gk. akró-polis, O.Sla. dobro-godŭ ‘good time’, O.Ir. find-airgit ‘white plant’, Lat.
angi-portus ‘narrow pass’), or numeral (cf. Lat. tri-uium, from uia, Gk. ámaza
‘chariot frame’, from ázōn).
C. Adjectival determiners (tatpuruṣa- for Indian grammarians), with first term
noun (cf. Gk. theo-eíkelos, Goth. gasti-gods ‘good for the guests’), adverb (cf.

315
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

O.Ind. ájñātas, Gk. ágnotos ‘unknown’, phroudos ‘who is on its way’, from pró and
odós).
D. Possessive compounds (bahu-vrihi- ‘which has a lot of rice’, for Indian
grammarians), as in Eng. barefoot, ‘(who goes) with bare feet’, with the first term
Noun (cf. Gk. arguró-tozos, O.Sla. črŭno-vladŭ, ‘of black hair’), adjective (cf. Lat.
magn-animus, ‘of great spirit’), adverb (cf. O.Ind. durmans, GK. dus-menḗs,
‘wicked’).
9. The accent could also distinguish determiners from possessives, as in O.Ind.
rāja-putrás ‘a king’s son’, from O.Ind. rajá-putras ‘who has a son as king, king’s
father’, see below.
SYNTHETICS
Synthetics consist of a nominal element preceding a verbal, in their unmarked
forms, as in Skt. agnídh- ‘priest’. As in this compound, the relation of the nominal
element to the verbal is that of target.

The particular relationship of nominal and verbal elements was determined by the
lexical properties of the verb; accordingly, the primary relationship for most PIE
verbs was that of target. But other nominal categories could also be used with verbs.

Kinds of relationships (Lehmann 1974):

1) The receptor relationship, as Skt. deva-héḍana ‘god-angering’, in m karma

devahéḍanam (lit. not we-do god-angering) ‘we will not do anything angering the
gods’.

2) The instrument or means relationship; as Skt. ádri-jūta ‘stone-speeded’, in

rátho ha vām r̥taj ádrijūtaḥ pári dyvāprthiv yāti sadyáḥ (lit. chariot Ptc. your
born-at-right-time speeded-by-stones about heaven-earth goes in-one-day) ‘Your
chariot, created at the right time, speeded by stones, goes around heaven and earth
in one day’.

3) The time relationship; as r̥ta-j ‘truly-born’, in the example above.

4) The source relationship, as Skt. aṅho-múc ‘distress-delivering’, in bháreshv

índraṃ suhávaṃ havāmahe ‘ṅhomúcaṃ sukr̥ ́ tam (lit. in-battles Indra well-called
we-call-on freeing-from-trouble doing-well) ‘In battles we call on Indra, whom it
is well to call, who frees from troubles, who does well’.

316
 10. Sentence Syntax

5) The place relationship, as Skt. dru-ṣád ‘tree-sitting’, in vér ná druṣác camvòr

sadad dhárih (lit. bird like sitting-in-tree bowls he-has-sat fallow) ‘Like a bird
sitting in a tree the fallow one has sat down in two bowls’.

6) The manner relationship; as, Skt. īśāna-kŕt ‘ruler-acting’, in ádhā yó víśvā

bhúvanābhí majmánā īśānakŕt právayā abhy ávardhata (lit. here who all
worlds-above with-strenght acting-like-a-ruler with-youthful-strength above he-
grew) ‘Who grew beyond all worlds with his strength, acting like a ruler, having
youthful strength’.
These compounds exhibit the various relationships of nominal constituents with
verbal elements, as in Skt. tv-datta ‘(by-)you-given’, in vidm hí yás te adrivas
tv-dattaḥ (lit. we-know Ptc. which your having-the-stones given-by-you) ‘For we
know your [wealth] given by you, you of the pressing-stones’.
Synthetics attested in the Rigveda accordingly illustrate all the nominal
relationships determinable from sentences. Synthetics are frequently comparable to
relative constructions, as in the following sentence: gnír agāmi bhrato vṛtrah
purucétaṇaḥ (lit. to-Agni he-was-approached the-Bharatan Vrtra-killer by-many-
seen) ‘Agni, the god of the Bharatas, was approached, he who killed Vr�tra, who is
seen by many’.

Besides the large number of synthetics of the NV pattern, others are attested with
the pattern VN. These are largely names and epithets, such as púṣṭi-gu, a name
meaning ‘one who raises cattle’, and sanád-rayi ‘dispensing riches’.
BAHUVRIHIS
The second large group of PIE compounds, Bahuvrihis, are derived in accordance
with the sentence pattern expressing possession. This pattern is well known from
the Latin mihi est construction (Bennett 1914; Brugmann 1911): nulli est homini
perpetuom bonum ‘No man has perpetual blessings’.
NOTE. Lehmann (1974) accounts for the derivation of bahuvrihis, like Lat. magnanimus
‘great-hearted’, assuming that an equational sentence with a noun phrase as subject and a
noun in the receptor category indicating possession is embedded with an equivalent noun,
as in ‘great spirit is to man’ = ‘the man has great spirit’.
On deletion of the equivalent NP (homini) in the embedded sentence, a bahuvrihi
compound magnanimus ‘greathearted’ is generated. This pattern of compounding ceased to
be primary and productive when the dialects developed verbal patterns for expressing
possession, such as Lat. habeo ‘I have’.

317
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

Bahuvrihis may be adjectival in use, or nominal, as in the vocative use of sūnari

‘having good strength’ (made up of su ‘good’ and *xner- ‘(magical) strength’) in Skt.
víśvasya hí prṇanaṃ jvanaṁ tvé, ví yid uchási sūnari (of-all Ptc. breath life in-
you Ptc. when you-shine having-good-strength) ‘For the breath and life of
everything is in you, when you light up the skies, you who have good strength’. The
Greek cognate may illustrate the adjectival use: phéron d’ euḗnora khalkón (they-
bore Ptc. powerful bronze) ‘They carried on board the bronze of good strength’. The
bahuvrihis are accordingly similar to synthetics in being comparable to relative
clauses (Lehmann 1974).
NOTE. Although the bahuvrihis were no longer primary and productive in the later
dialects, their pattern remained remarkably persistent, as we may note from the various
philo- compounds in Greek, such as philósophos ‘one who holds wisdom dear’, phíloinos ‘one
who likes wine’, and many more. Apart from the loss of the underlying syntactic pattern, the
introduction of different accentual patterns removed the basis for bahuvrihis. As Risch
pointed out, Greek eupátōr could either be a bahuvrihi ‘having a good father’ or a tatpurusha
‘a noble father’. In the period before the position of the accent was determined by the quantity
of final syllables, the bahuvrihi would have had the accent on the prior syllable, like rja-
putra ‘having kings as sons’, RV 2.27.7, in contrast with the tatpurusha rja-putrá ‘king’s
son’, RV 10.40.3. The bahuvrihis in time, then, were far less frequent than tatpurushas, of
which only a few are to be posited for Late Indo-European. An example is Gk. propátōr
‘forefather’. If the disputed etymology of Latin proprius ‘own’ is accepted, *pro-pətrjós ‘from
the forefathers’, there is evidence for assuming a PIE etymon; Wackernagel (1905) derives
Sanskrit compounds like prá-pada ‘tip of foot’ from PIE. Yet the small number of such
compounds in the early dialects indicates that they were formed in the late stage of PIE
(Risch). Contrary to Pokorny’s reconstruction of *pro-pətrjós is the existence of adverb
*proprītim (<*priH-ti-) ‘particularly’, found in Lucretius, which makes it difficult for the
haplology to be sustained. A more plausible reconstruction is from verb prijājō, from
prijós, dear, with an ancient meaning of ‘inalienable possesion’ in Sanskrit, or just
‘possesion’ in Latin (see Blanc 2004).
NOTE 2. Dvandvas, such as índrāviśṇu and a few other patterns, like the teens, were not
highly productive in PIE, if they are to be assumed at all. Their lack of productiveness may
reflect poorly developed coordination constructions in PIE (Lehmann 1969). Besides the
expansion of tatpurushas and dvandvas in the dialects, we must note also the use of expanded
root forms. Thematic forms of noun stems and derived forms of verbal roots are used, as in
Skt. deva-kṛta ‘made by the gods’. Such extended constituents become more and more
prominent and eventually are characteristic elements of compounds, as the connecting vowel
-o- in Greek and in early Germanic; Gk. Apolló-dōros ‘gift of Apollo’ (an n- stem) and Goth.
guma-kunds ‘of male sex’ (also an n- stem). Yet the relationships between the constituents
remain unchanged by such morphological innovations. The large number of tatpurushas in
the dialects reflects the prominence of embedded-modifier constructions, as the earlier

318
 10. Sentence Syntax

synthetics and bahuvrihis reflected the embedding of sentences, often to empty noun nodes.
As noted above, they accordingly have given us valuable information about PIE sentence
types and their internal relationships.

10.4.3. DETERMINERS IN NOMINAL PHRASES

Nouns are generally unaccompanied by modifiers. Demonstratives are infrequent;
nouns which might be considered definite have no accompanying determinative
marker unless they are to be stressed, in which case the demonstrative precedes.
(Lehmann 1974).
The relationship between such demonstratives and accompanying nouns has been
assumed to be appositional; it may be preferable to label the relationship a loose
one, as of pronoun or noun plus noun, rather than adjective or article plus noun.
In Homer too the “article” is generally an anaphoric pronoun, differing from
demonstratives by its lack of deictic meaning referring to location (Munro).
Nominal phrases as found in Classical Greek or in later dialects are subsequent
developments; the relationship between syntactic elements related by congruence,
such as adjectives, or even by case, such as genitives, can often be taken as similar
to an appositional relationship (Meillet 1937).
To illustrate nominal phrases, cf. Vedic eṣām marútām ‘of-them of-Maruts’. The
nominal phrase which may seem to consist of a demonstrative preceding a noun,
eṣām marútām, is divided by the end of the line; accordingly eṣām must be
interpreted as pronominal rather than adjectival.
Virtually any line of Homer might be cited to illustrate the absence of close
relationships between the members of nominal phrases; cf. Odyssey nēûs dé moi
hḗd’ héstēken ep’ agroûnósphi pólēos, en liméni Rheíthrōi hupò Nēíōi hulḗenti ‘My
ship is berthed yonder in the country away from the city, in a harbor called
Rheithron below Neion, which is wooded’. The nouns have no determiners even
when, like nēus, they are definite; and the modifiers with liméni and Neíoi seem to
be loosely related epithets rather than closely linked descriptive adjectives.
The conclusions about the lack of closely related nominal phrases may be
supported by the status of compounds in PIE. The compounds consisting of
descriptive adjectives + noun are later; the most productive are reduced verbal
rather than nominal constructions. And the bahuvrihis, which indicate a descriptive
relationship between the first element and the second, support the conclusion that
the relationship is relatively general; rājá-putra, for example, means ‘having sons

319
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

who are kings’ rather than ‘having royal sons’; gó-vapus means ‘having a shape like
a cow’, said of rainclouds, for which the epithet denotes the fructifying quality rather
than the physical shape. (Lehmann 1974).
Accordingly, closely related nominal expressions are to be assumed only for the
dialects, not for PIE. Definiteness was not indicated for nouns. The primary
relationship between nominal elements, whether nouns or adjectives, was
appositional.

10.4.4. APPOSITION
1. Apposition is traditionally “when paratactically joined forms are grammatically,
but not in meaning, equivalent” (Lehmann 1974).
NOTE. Because of the relationship between nouns and modifiers, and also because subjects
of verbs were only explicit expressions for the subjective elements in verb forms, Meillet
(1937) considered apposition a basic characteristic of Indo-European syntax. Subjects were
included only when a specific meaning was to be expressed.
2. A distinction is made between appositional and attributive (Delbrück); an
appositional relationship between two or more words is not indicated by any formal
expression, whereas an attributive relationship generally is (Lehmann 1974).
A. Thus the relationships in the following line of the Odyssey are attributive:
arnúmenos hḗn te psukhḗn kaì nóston hetaírōn lit. ‘striving-for his Ptc. life and
return of-companions’. The relationship between hḗn and psukhḗn is indicated by
the concordance in endings; that between nóston and hetaírōn by the genitive.
B. On the other hand the relationship between the two vocatives in the following
line is appositional, because there is no mark indicating the relationship: tȏn
hamóthen ge, theá, thúgater Diós, eipè kaì hēmȋn ‘Tell us of these things, beginning
at any point you like, goddess, daughter of Zeus’. Both vocatives can be taken
independently, as can any appositional elements.
3. Asyndetic constructions which are not appositive are frequently attested, as Skt.
té vo hṛdé mánase santu yajñ ‘These sacrifices should be in accordance with your
heart, your mind’. Coordinate as well as appositive constructions could thus be
without a specific coordinating marker.
4. Comparable to appositional constructions are titles, for, like appositions, the
two or more nouns involved refer to one person.
NOTE. In OV languages titles are postposed in contrast with the preposing in VO
languages; compare Japanese Tanaka-san with Mr. Middlefield. The title ‘king’ with Varuna

320
 10. Sentence Syntax

and similarly in the Odyssey, Poseidáōni ánakti, when ánaks is used as a title. But, as
Lehmann himself admits, even in the early texts, titles often precede names, in keeping with
the change toward a VO structure (Lehmann 1974).
5. Appositions normally follow, when nouns and noun groups are contiguous, as
in the frequent descriptive epithets of Homer: Tòn d’ ēmeíbet’ épeita theá, glaukôpis
Athḗnē, ‘Him then answered the goddess, owl-eyed Athene’.
To indicate a marked relationship, however, they may precede (Schwyzer 1950).
But the early PIE position is clear from the cognates: Skt. dyaus pitā, Gk. Zeû páter,
Lat. Jūpiter.

10.5. MODIFIED FORMS OF PIE SIMPLE SENTENCES

10.5.1. COORDINATION
1. While coordination is prominent in the earliest texts, it is generally implicit.
The oldest surviving texts consist largely of paratactic sentences, often with no
connecting particles; cf. Lat. ueni, uidi, uici ‘I came, I saw, I won’; Gk. ḗiomen, hōs
ekéleues, anà drumá …/ heúromen en bḗssēisi tetugména dṓmata kalá lit. ‘we-went
as you-commanded, through the-jungle…/we-found in the-valley a-polished palace
beautiful’; Hitt. adueni akueni nu URUḫattusa iyannaḫe ‘we-eat, we-drink Ptc. from-
Hatusa I-go’.
2. New sentences may be introduced with particles, or relationships may be
indicated with pronominal elements; but these are fewer than in subsequent texts.
Similar patterns of paratactic sentences are found in Hittite, with no overt marker
of coordination or of subordination. According to Friedrich (1960) “purpose and
result” clauses are not found in Hittite; coordinate sentences are simply arranged
side by side with the particle nu, as in the Hittite Laws. Conditional relationships
too are found in Hittite with no indication of subordination, v.i. §10.5.3.
The arrangement of sentences in sequence is a typical pattern of PIE syntax,
whether for hypotactic or for paratactic relationships.
3. Expressions for coordination were used largely for elements within clauses and
sentences. When used to link sentences, conjunctions were often accompanied by
initial particles indicating the beginning of a new clause and also indicating a variety
of possible relationships with neighbouring clauses (Lehmann 1974).
NOTE. Sentence-connecting particles are, however, infrequent in Vedic and relatively
infrequent in the earliest Hittite texts; Lehmann (1974) concludes that formal markers of
sentence coordination were not mandatory in PIE.

321
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

COPULATIVE
The normal coordinating copulative particle in most of the dialects is a reflex of
PIE -qe.
NOTE. Hittite -a, -i̯a is used similarly, as in attaš annaš a ‘father and mother’ (J. Friedrich
1960). This is probably related to Toch. B yo.
This is postposed to the second of two conjoined elements; as, Ved. ágna índras
ca ‘o Agni and Indra’; or to both, as Skt. devś ca ásurās ca, ‘Gods and Asuras’, Gk.
patḗr andrõn te theõn te ‘father of men and gods’ (Beekes 1995).
Introducing another sentence, as Gothic fram-uh þamma sokida Peilatus fraletan
ina ‘And at this Pilate sought to release him’.
There is an tendency toward a polysyndetic use (Mendoza 1998); cf. Gk. aieì gár
toi épis te phílē pólemoi te mákhai te (lit. always then for-you the-discord -and dear
the-wars -and the-battles -and) ‘Discord, wars and battles are always dear to you’.
NOTE. With the change in coordinating constructions, new particles were introduced;
some of these, for example, Lat. et, Goth. jah, O.E. and, have a generally accepted etymology;
others, like Gk. kaí, are obscure in etymology. Syntactically the shift in the construction
rather than the source of the particles is of primary interest, though, as noted above, the
introduction of new markers for the new VO patterns provides welcome lexical evidence of a
shift. The syntactic shift also brought with it patterns of coordination reduction (Ersparung)
which have been well described for some dialects (Behaghel). Such constructions are notable
especially in SVO languages, in which sequences with equivalent verbs (S, V, O, Conj., S2, V1,
O2) delete the second occurrence of the verb , as M.H.G. daz einer einez will und ein ander
ein anderz, ‘that one one-thing wants and another another’. Lehmann (1974)
ALTERNATIVE
The disjunctive particle PIE -w is also postposed to the second element; Lat. silua
alta Iouis lūcusue Diānae ‘the high forest of Jupiter or the grove of Diana’; or to
both, as Skt. náktaṃ vā dívā vā, ‘(either) during the night or during the day’, or Gk.
ē ̀ theòs ēè gunḗ (with change to prepositional order) ‘or goddess or woman’.
NOTE. In Hittite, however, the postposed particles -ku ... -ku (<-qe…-qe) ‘or’, were used
with alternative function, always repeated and only as nexus between sentences; for nouns
there was the particle našma, which stood between nouns rather than after the last. This
pattern of conjunction placement came to be increasingly frequent in the dialects; it indicates
that the conjunction patterns of VO structure have come to be typical already by PIH.
DISJUNCTIVE
In all older IE languages it was possible to express this function of parataxis by
simple repetition of negation, and that was the only possibility in Vedic.

322
 10. Sentence Syntax

However, a disjunctive compound conjunction neqe is found in Indo-Iranian,

Anatolian, Italic, Celtic and Germanic. It was not a frozen lexical remain, since the
older IE languages analyse the compound as ne+qe.
NOTE. A compound with the prohibitive negation mḗqe is also found in Indo-
Iranian and Greek, and with the alternative newe in Indo-Iranian, Anatolian, Italic
and Celtic.
The compound conjunction can appear introducing only the second member of
both negatives, or it can be repeated also in the first member to emphasise the
parallelism of this type of construction (Mendoza 1998).
Both systems, as well as the simple negation, are attested in the oldest texts.
ADVERSATIVE
No common adversative conjunction seems to be reconstructible for PIE, although
dialectally some conjunctions did succeed with this function, probably in a LIE or
post-LIE period; as, at(i), ōd, etc. (v.s. §8.5).
NOTE. That has been related by Bednarczuk (1980) with the postpositive character of
paratactic conjunctions of the common language, what configures them as polysyndetic and
capable of joining words and sentences, while the adversative function – exclusive of the
sentence parataxis – demands prepositive conjunctions and necessarily monosyndetic.
In the older IE languages, the adversative function is expressed by the same
postposed copulative conjunction -qe, being its adversative use defined by the
context, by the semantic relationship between the sentences (Gonda 1954).

10.5.2. COMPLEMENTATION
1. Compound sentences may result from the embedding of nominal modifiers.
NOTE. In VO languages embedded nominal modifiers follow nouns, whereas in OV
languages they precede nouns. This observation has led to an understanding of the Hittite
and the reconstructed PIE relative constructions. If we follow the standard assumption that
in relative constructions a second sentence containing a noun phrase equivalent to a noun
phrase in the matrix sentence is embedded in that matrix sentence, we may expect that either
sentence may be modified. A sentence may also be embedded with a dummy noun; the verb
forms of such embedded sentences are commonly expressed with nominal forms of the verb,
variously called infinitives, supines, or participles. In OV languages these, as well as relative
constructions, precede the verb of the matrix sentence (Lehmann 1974).
2. An example with participles in the IE languages is Skt. vásānaḥ in the last lines
of the following strophic hymn: rúśad vásānaḥ sudṛśīkarūpaḥ lit. ‘brightly
dressing-himself beautifully-hued’.

323
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

It may also have “a final or consequential sense”, as in the following strophic

hymn: tvám indra sravitav apás kaḥ ‘You, O Indra, make the waters to flow’. Also
in the poetic texts such infinitives may follow the main verb, as in ábodhi hótā
yajáthāya devn (lit. he-woke-up priest for-sacrificing gods) ‘The priest has
awakened to sacrifice to the gods’ (Lehmann 1974).
NOTE. The postposed order may result from stylistic or poetic rearrangement; yet it is also
a reflection of the shift to VO order, a shift which is reflected in the normal position for
infinitives in the other IE dialects. In the Brahmanas still, infinitives normally stand directly
before the verb, except in interrogative and negative sentences (Delbrück). On the basis of
the Brahmanic order we may assume that in PIE nonfinite verbs used as complements to
principal verbs preceded them in the sentence. Hittite provides examples of preposed
complementary participles and infinitives to support this assumption (J. Friedrich).
Participles were used particularly with har(k)- ‘have’ and eš- ‘be’, as in uerii̯an ešta ‘was
mentioned’; the pattern is used to indicate state.

INFINITIVES AND PARTICIPLES

According to Fritz (in Meier-Brügger 2003) in Proto-Indo-European, the existence
of participles may safely be asserted. Additionally, infinitive constructions with final
dative, accusative of direction, and the locative of destination are presumed to have
existed. While infinitives are defined by syntax, the very presence of participles
reveals that there were participial constructions in Proto-Indo-European. According
to J.L. García Ramón (1997), “[the assertion] of a true Proto-Indo-European
infinitive ending in *-sén(i) is justified,” which could be traced to a locative form,
which, according to K. Stüber (2000) appears in the case of s-stem abstract nouns
with the locative forms ending in *en.
Infinitives could indicate result, with or without an object (J. Friedrich 1960): 1-
aš 1-an kunanna lē šanhanzi (lit. one one to-kill not he-tries) ‘One should not try to
kill another’.
Infinitives could be used to express purpose, as in the following example, which
pairs an infinitive with a noun (J. Friedrich): tuk-ma kī uttar ŠÀ-ta šii̯anna išhiull-
a ešdu (lit. to-you-however this word in-heart for-laying instruction-and it-should-
be) ‘But for you this word should be for taking to heart and for instruction’.
The infinitive could be loosely related to its object, as in examples cited by
Friedrich, such as apāš-ma-mu harkanna šan(a)hta (lit. “he-however-me for-
deteriorating he-sought) ‘But he sought to destroy me’.

324
 10. Sentence Syntax

The complementary infinitive indicates the purpose of the action; as Friedrich

points out, it is attached to the verb šanhta plus its object mu in a construction quite
different from that in subsequent dialects.
These uses are parallelled by uses in Vedic, as may be noted in the work of
Macdonell (1916), from which some examples are taken in Lehmann (1974). On the
basis of such examples in Vedic and in Hittite, he assumes that infinitive
constructions were used to indicate a variety of complements in PIE.
Hittite and Sanskrit also provide examples of participles functioning
appositionally or as adjectives indicating state (J. Friedrich 1960): ammuk-u̯ar-an
akkantan IQ.BI (lit. to-me-Ptc.-indicating-quotation-him dying he-described) ‘He
told me that one had died’.
This pattern had been noted by Delbrück (1900) for the Rigveda, with various
examples, as śiśīhí mā śiśayáṃ tvā śṛṇomi, ‘Strengthen me; I hear that you are
strong’. The adjective śiśayá ‘strengthening’ is an adjective derived from the same
root as śiśīhí. Delbrück also noted that such “appositives” are indicated in Greek by
means of clauses. Greek represents for Lehmann accordingly a further stage in the
development of the IE languages to a VO order. Yet Greek still maintained preposed
participles having the same subject as does the principal verb, as in: tḕn mèn idṑn
gḗthēse, lit. ‘it Ptc. seeing he-rejoiced’ (Lehmann 1974).
This pattern permits the use of two verbs with only one indicating mood and
person; the nonfinite verb takes these categories from the finite.
Participles were thus used in the older period for a great variety of relationships,
though also without indicating some of the verbal categories.
Dependent clauses are more flexible in indicating such relationships, and more
precise, especially when complementary participles and infinitives follow the
principal verb.

10.5.3. SUBORDINATE CLAUSES

1. As with coordination, subordination could be made without grammatical mark
in the older IE languages, hence the context alone decided if it was a subordinate;
as in Eng. the man he called paid the boy (Lehmann 1974).
So e.g. Hom. Gk. all’ áge nûn epímeinon, arḗia teúkhea duō ‘then now wait (until)
I dress the weapons of war’; Lat. fac noscam ‘make me know’ (Delbrück 1900).

325
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

2. These sentences, with a change in person, mood, or simply eliminating the

pause between both sentences, are usually considered the origin of some types of
subordinates.
Especially common is this archaic type of paratactic construction in substantive
subordinates, i.e. those sentences which take the role of a verbal actor (subject or
object), or of a constituent of the nominal sentence. Such archaic forms are found
in substantive subordinates expressing thoughts, words, desires or fears, in which
these are quoted literally, without change in person, i.e. in the direct syle, proper of
a stage of the language previous to the introduction of the indirect style (Rubio
1976).
3. The most extended substantive sentence in the older languages is in fact not the
one introduced by conjunctions – which is considered a late development –, but
those whose subordination is introduced by non-finite forms of the verb, like
participles and infinitives.
Almost all languages have infinitives and participles functioning as subject or
object of the sentence, especially with verbs of will or in nominal sentences. That is
found in Hittite, Greek, Latin, Germanic, Slavic, and especially frequent are
participles in -nt (the oldest ones), clearly differentiated from the main clause with
the common subordinate+main order.
NOTE. The order subordinate+main seems to have been obligatory in PIE. This has been
linked with the lack of subordinates of purpose and result, because in these constructions
iconicity demands a postposed order. Precisely conditionals – apparently the first
subordinates introduced by conjunctions, see below – have a structure which is necessarily
correlative, with a systematic preposed order to the subordinate.
In the attested IE languages that relative order subordinate+main was eventually inverted,
which has been linked with a typological change of a language OV into a VO one. At the same
time, there was a tendency to place the relative pronoun immediately after the noun to which
it refers, all of which is typically found in most IE languages of a late period.
Examples of such subordinate clauses without mark include (Mendoza 1998):
Hitt. MU.KAM-za-wa-ta šer tepawešanza nu-wa BE-LI-NI INA URUḪayaša lē paiši
‘the year having been shortened, (Ptc.) Lord, do not go to Hayasa’; Gk. kaì prín per
thumō̑i memaṓs Tróessi mákhesthai dè tóte min trìs tósson hélen ménos lit. ‘and
before even in-his-soul willing-to against-the-Trojans fight Ptc. then to-him thrice
bigger took-him impetus’.

326
 10. Sentence Syntax

NOTE. According to Mendoza (1998), such examples are usually analysed as absolute
constructions (see above §10.1.2). In Hittite, where there are no absolutes, they are
interpreted as pure nominal sentences, without copula.
But, if the relation between both clauses is inverted, and with it their order, the result is
two juxtaposed sentences, the second one (with participle) introduced by nu too, but with
the personal verb, with an explicit copula: Hitt. man I-NA URU Ḫayaša paun-pat nu-za
MU.KAM-za-wa-ta šer tepawešanza ešta (lit. ptc. to Hayasa I-would-have-gone ptc. the-
year in-which-it-has-been-shortened is) ‘I would have gone to Hayasa, but the year got
shorter’.
The conclusion is that from these sentences, with the integration of such substantive
subordinate constructions into the main clause, come the absolute participle constructions
attested in all IE branches but for Anatolian (Holland 1986).
4. A common resource in the older IE languages was to ‘transform’ finite verbs into
nominal sentences, due to the syntactic flexibility of participles. As, for Gk.
hoppóteros dé ke nikḗsēi … gunaĩká te oíkad’ agésthō ‘who wins … he carries home
the woman’, Gk. tõi dé ke nikḗsanti phílē keklḗsēi ákoitis ‘by the one having won you
will be called dear wife’ (Ramat 1993).
NOTE. So e.g. the performative assertion, a linguistic act of guarantee and compromise,
expressed by the syntactic secondary rule of demonstrative in Ved. ayám te asmi ‘with-that
yours I-am’, is transformed into a participle clause in the complex m mm imam táva
sántam … ni gārit ‘that he bolts me not’, lit. ‘being here yours’. The participle reinforces a
performative assertion ‘With that I promise you, Atri. Do not let Svarbhānu destroy me’.
This is the case of the finite verb of existence in another linguistic act, of confessional
formula; as, Hitt. ēšziy=at iyawen=at ‘It is. We did it’, which is transformed into ašān=at
iyanun=at , lit. ‘This (is) absent. I did it’. From this syntactic use of Hitt. ašant- we can
glimpse Lat. sōns, sontis ‘guilty’, the old participle present of verb ‘be’, esse. Ramat (1993).
CONDITIONAL
Of all subordinate clauses introduced by conjunctions, only conditionals seem not
to be related to the relative clauses. In fact, they are the only conjunctional
subordinate developed in Hittite, well attested since the older texts (introduced by
takku), and whose conjunction is not derived from the relative (Mendoza 1998).
According to Clackson (2007), a particular marker appears to be used to introduce
conditional clauses in at least three different early branches of IE: -qe, the
connective enclitic (although it also has other functions), both at the word level and,
less generally, clause level. The Sanskrit derivative of -qe, ca, is used in thirty-one
passages in the Rig-Veda, the corpus of early Sanskrit hymns, to introduce
subordinate conditional or temporal clauses; in all cases the clause with the clitic ca
stands before the main clause.

327
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

Wackernagel (1942) had noticed similar, marginal, uses of the cognates of Sanskrit
ca to introduce subordinate, and in particular conditional, clauses in Gothic, Latin
and Greek. This support for a PIE use of -qe to introduce conditional clauses then
appeared to be confirmed by Hittite, since the element -ku of the conditional particle
takku ‘if’, can be derived from -qe.
RELATIVE
Indo-Europeanists have long recognised the relationship between the
subordinating particles and the stem from which relative pronouns were derived in
Indo-Iranian and Greek.
Thus Delbrück has pointed out in detail how the neuter accusative form of PIE jo-
was the basis of the conjunction jod in its various meanings: (1) Temporal, (2)
Temporal-Causal, (3) Temporal-Conditional, (4) Purpose. He also recognised the
source of conjunctional use in sentences like Skt. yáj jyathās tád áhar asya kme
‘ṅśóḥ pīyū́ ṣam apibo giriṣṭhm, ‘On the day you were born you drank the mountain
milk out of desire for the plant’ (Lehmann 1974).
Thus, subordinated clauses that are introduced by relative pronouns can perform
the function of subject, object, adverbial phrase, appositional phrase, and attribute.
a) In the older IE languages, the relative clause often precedes the main clause
(and with it, the antecedent). The relative pronoun or adverb is often paired with a
pronominal or adverbial antecedent, yielding what are called correlative structures
of the type ‘(the one) who …, he …’, or ‘in the way which …, in that way…’ (Fortson
2004).
b) The earliest type of subordinate jo-, qi-/qo- clauses must have been the
preposed relative constructions; Vedic yó no dvéṣṭi, ádharah sás padīṣṭa ‘who us
hates, down he will-fall’. But elements could be left-detached for topicalisation (see
below §10.6.3): púro yád asya sampinak (lit. rocks when of-him you-destroyed)
‘when you destroyed his rocks’.
NOTE. This conclusion from Vedic receives striking support from Hittite, for in it we find
the same syntactic relationship between relative clauses and other subordinate clauses as is
found in Vedic, Greek, and other early dialects. But the marker for both types of clauses
differs. In Hittite it is based on IE qid rather than jod; thus, Hittite too uses the relative
particle for indicating subordination. The remarkable parallelism between the syntactic
constructions, though they have different surface markers, must be ascribed to typological
reasons; we assume that Hittite as well as Indo-Aryan and Greek was developing a lexical
marker to indicate subordination. As does yad in Vedic, Hitt. kuit signals a “loose”
relationship between clauses which must be appropriately interpreted. Lehmann (1974).

328
 10. Sentence Syntax

As J. Friedrich has stated (1960), kuit never stands initially in its clause. Sentences in which
it is used are then scarcely more specifically interconnected than are conjoined sentences
with no specific relating word, as in examples cited by Friedrich (ibid.): nu taškupāi nu URU-
aš dapii̯anzi išdammašzi (lit. Ptc. you-shout Ptc. city whole it-hears) ‘Now cry out [so that]
the whole city hears’. Like this example, both clauses in a kuit construction generally are
introduced with nu (J. Friedrich 1960). We may assume that kuit became a subordinating
particle when such connections were omitted, as in Friedrich’s example. These examples
illustrate that both yád and kuit introduce causal clauses, though they do not contain
indications of the origin of this use.

CORRELATIVE
It is therefore generally believed that subordinates originated in relative sentences,
as Vedic, Old Irish, Avestan and Old Persian illustrate. Proverbs and maxims are a
particularly conservative field in all languages, and even etymologically there are
two series which appear especially often in correlatives; namely, qo-...to-, and jo-
...to-.
NOTE. For IE qo-..to-, cf. Lat. cum...tum, qualis...talis, quam...tam, or Lith. kàs...tàs,
kòks...tàs, kaîp...taîp, kíek...tíek, etc., and for jo-...to-, Ved. yás...sá tád, yáthā...táthā,
yvat...tvat, Gk. oios...toios, ósos...tósos, O.Pers. haya (a compound from so+jo, with the
same inverse compound as Lat. tamquam, from two correlatives), etc.
For Haudry this correlative structure is the base for subordination in all Indo-
European languages. Proto-Indo-European would therefore show an intermediate
syntax between parataxis and hypotaxis, as the correlative structure is between a
‘loose’ syntax and a ‘locked’ one.
Examples of equivalent old correlative sentences include the following (Watkins
1976, Ramat 1993): Hitt. nu tarḫzi kuiš nu apāš KA.TAB.ANŠE ēpzi (lit. Ptc. wins
who Ptc. he reins takes) ‘Who wins, (he) takes the reins [=takes charge]’; Ved. sa yo
na ujjeṣyati sa pratamaḥ somasya pāsyati lit. ‘he who Ptc. shall-win, he the-first
the-soma will-drink’; Ved. sa yo na ujjeṣyati tasya idam bhaviṣyati ‘he who Ptc.
shall-win, of-him this will-be’; Gk. hós nun orkhéstōn … atalótata paízei tò tóde
k[]n ‘who now of the dancers more sporting plays, of him (is) this […]’; Gk.
hoppóteros dé ke nikḗsēi … gunaĩká te oíkad’ agésthō ‘who wins … he carries home
the woman’.

RESTRICTIVE AND EXPLICATIVE RELATIVE CLAUSES

Greek, Indo-Iranian, Phrygian, Slavic and Celtic have inherited a stem jo- but
Anatolian, Latin, Sabellian and Tocharian derive their relative pronouns from a

329
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

stem qo-/qi-. This distribution cuts across other isoglosses separating the IE
languages and does not seem to reflect a dialectal difference of the parent language.
Common examples of relative clauses are (Fortson 2004): yéna im viśvā
cyavanā kr̥tni ... sá janāsa índraḥ ‘(The one) by whom all these things have been
made to shake ... that, people, (is) Indra’; Gk. hós ke theoĩs epipeíthētai, mála t’
ékluon autoĩ ‘Whoever obeys the gods, they listen to him as well’.
NOTE. Fritz (in Meier-Brügger 2003) sums up the uses of the qi-/qo- and jo- relative
pronouns, according to Ch. Lehmann. Clackson’s (2007) description is very clear: “A crucial
element of the recent work has been the difference between restrictive or defining relatives
and non-restrictive (also called descriptive or appositional) relatives. Restrictive relatives
delimit the head of the relative clause, but non-restrictive relatives merely add extra
information about their head. Compare the following sentences:
[a] The tea that I drank was cold.
[b] The tea, which I eventually drank, was cold.
In [a] the relative defines and restricts the referent, whereas in [b] the relative gives
incidental information, and is in effect a separate assertion from that of the main clause. In
English, if the relative pronoun is omitted, only a restrictive interpretation is possible. Some
English speakers prefer, or are taught, to use that as a relative pronoun in restrictive clauses.”
The differentiation of relative clauses introduced by qo-/qi- and jo- is
summarised by Clackson (2007) according to the finds in the older IE languages:
• qo-/qi- shows a common use for attributive-restrictive relative clauses in
Hittite and Latin, and their most common order is relative-matrix; as, Lat.
pecuniam quis nancitor habeto ‘fortune, who acquire it own it’, Goth. ni
weistu hwaz ih sagen thir, ‘you don’t know what I say to you’.
• jo- is most commonly used in appositive-explicative relative clauses in Vedic
Sanskrit and Homeric Greek, with a matrix-relative order of the sentence; as,
Ved. sóma ys te mayobhúva ūtáyah sánti dāśúṣe tbhir no ‘vit bhava (lit.
Soma which from-you benefitious aids are for-the-one-who-worships-you,
with-them of-us helper be-you) ‘Soma, with your aids, which are benefitious
to those who worship you, help us’.
NOTE. Clackson (2007): “Should we then conclude that PIE had two separate relative
pronouns, and different clause structures for restrictive and non-restrictive relatives? It is
often a fault of Indo-Europeanists to over-reconstruct, and to explain every development of
the daughter languages through reconstruction of a richer system in the parent language. (…)
However, the reconstruction of two relative pronouns for PIE does fit the attested facts better
than any of the other theories on offer.”

330
 10. Sentence Syntax

Very characteristically, if the antecedent is a noun rather than a pronoun, it is

placed within the relative clause and in the same case as the relative, sometimes
repeated in the main clause. Thus instead of saying The gods who gave us riches
can take them away, speakers of these languages would have said literally, Which
gods gave us riches, they/those gods can take them away (Fortson 2004): Hitt.
nu=kan kāš IM-aš kuēz wappuwaz danza nu zik wappuaš DMAḪ tuēl ŠU-TIKA dā
(lit.) ‘from which riverbank this clay (has been) taken, o genius of (that) riverbank,
take (it) in your hand’, i.e. ‘0 genius of the riverbank from which this clay has been
taken ...’; Old Latin quem agrum eōs uēndere herēdemque sequī licet, is ager
uectīgal nei siet ‘the field which (lit., which field) they are allowed to sell and pass
to an heir, that field may not be taxable’.
NOTE. As can be seen from some of the examples so far quoted, the relative pronoun did
not need to be the first member of its clause. In several of the ancient IE languages, the
relative could be preceded at least by a topicalised element, just like the subordinating
conjunctions.
The difference between relative clauses introduced by qo-/qi- vs. jo- could also
be traced back to dependent vs. independent clauses respectively, instead of
restrictive vs. explicative.
NOTE. The main fact supporting this would be the position of qi- in Hittite sentences,
where it is never found at the beginning of the sentence. Hence Hittite doesn’t present
structures of the type ‘qui gladio ferit gladio perit’; that is the option followed in the Modern
Indo-European Syntax (López-Menchero 2012).

CIRCUMSTANCE
Lehmann (1974) assumes that the use of Skt. yád, Hitt. kuit, and other relative
particles to express a causal relationship arose from subordination of clauses
introduced by them to an ablative; cf. Skt. ácittī yát táva dhármā yuyopimá lit.
‘unknowing that, because your law, order we-have-disturbed’, m nas tásmād
énaso deva rīriṣaḥ (lit. not us because-of-that because-of-sin O-god you-harm) ‘Do
not harm us, god, because of that sin [that] because unknowingly we have disturbed
your law’.
As such relationships with ablatives expressing cause were not specific, more
precise particles or conjunctions came to be used. In Sanskrit the ablatival yasmāt
specifies the meaning ‘because’.
Further, yad and yátra specify the meaning ‘when’. In Hittite, mān came to be
used for temporal relationships, possibly after combined use with kuit; kuitman

331
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

expressed a temporal relationship even in Late Hittite, corresponding to ‘while,

until’, though mahhan has replaced mān (J. Friedrich 1960 gives further details).
The conjunction mān itself specifies the meanings ‘if’ and ‘although’ in standard
Hittite. In both Hittite and Vedic then, the “loose” relative-construction relationship
between subordinate clauses and principal clauses is gradually replaced by special
conjunctions for the various types of hypotactic relationship: causal, temporal,
conditional, concessive.
Just as the causal relationship developed from an ablative modified by a relative
construction, so the temporal and conditional relationship developed from a clause
modifying an underlying time node.

10.6. SYNTACTIC CATEGORIES

10.6.1. PARTICLES AS SYNTACTIC MEANS OF EXPRESSION

Noninflected words of various functions were used in indicating relationships
between other words in the sentence or between sentences.
1. Some were used for modifying nouns, often indicating the relationships of nouns
to verbs. Although these were generally placed after nouns and accordingly were
postpositions, they have often been called prepositions by reason of their function
rather than their position with regard to nouns (Delbrück).
2. Others were used for modifying verbs, often specifying more precisely the
meanings of verbs; these then may be called preverbs.
3. Others, commonly referred to as sentence connectives, were used primarily to
indicate the relationships between clauses or sentences (Watkins 1964; Lehmann
1969).
PREPOSITIONS AND POSTPOSITIONS
Prepositions and postpositions were simply independent adverbs in PIE (as in
Anatolian, Indo-Iranian and the oldest Greek), and they could appear before or after
their objects, although the oldest pattern found is agreed to be postposed. Anatolian
and Vedic have almost exclusively postpositions, not prepositions; as, Hitt. šuḫḫi
šēr ‘on the roof’, Ved. jánām̐ ánu ‘among men’; and also remains in Gk. toútōn péri
‘about these things’, and Lat. mēcum ‘with me’ (Fortson 2004).
Postpositions in the various dialects are found with specific cases, in accordance
with their meanings.

332
 10. Sentence Syntax

Yet in the Old Hittite texts, the genitive rather than such a specific case is
prominent with postpositions derived from nouns, such as piran ‘(in) front’ (Neu
1970): kuiš LUGAL-ua-aš piran ēšzi (who king’s front he-sits) ‘whoever sits
before the king’ (Lehmann 1974).

PREVERBS
Rather than having the close relationships to nouns illustrated above, the same
adverbs could instead be associated primarily with verbs, often the same particles
which were used as postpositions.
Examples include (Fortson 2004) Hitt. š=aš šarā URU-ya pait ‘and he went up to
the city’; Ved. abhí yó mahin dívaṃ mitró babhū́va sapráthāḥ ‘Mitra the
renowned who is superior to heaven by his greatness’; O.Av. frō mā sāstū vahištā
‘let him teach me the best things’; Gk. edētúos eks éron hénto ‘they put aside desire
for food”; O.Lat. ob uōs sacrō ‘I entreat you’ (would be uōs obsecrō in Classical
Latin); O.Ir. ad- cruth caín cichither ‘fair form will be seen’.
NOTE. German and Dutch are well known for having many separable affixes. In the
sentence Ger. Ich komme gut zu Hause an the prefix an in the verb ankommen is detached.
However, in the participle, as in Er ist angekommen ‘He has arrived’, it is not separated. In
Dutch, compare Hij is aangekomen ‘He has arrived’, but Ik kom morgen aan ‘I shall arrive
tomorrow’.
English has many phrasal or compound verb forms that act in this way. For example, the
adverb (or adverbial particle) up in the phrasal verb to screw up can appear after the subject
(“things”) in the sentence: He is always screwing things up.

Non-personal forms, i.e. nouns and adjectives, form a compound

(karmadharaya) with the preposition; as O.Ind. prasādaḥ ‘favour’, Lat subsidium,
praesidium, O.Ind. apaciti, Gk. apotisis ‘reprisal’, etc.
Preverbs might occupy various positions:

1. If unmarked, they are placed before the verb, as in the examples above.

2. If marked, they are placed initially in clauses (Watkins 1964); as, Av. pairi uši
vāraiiaϑβəm ‘cover (their) ears’, where the preverb (pairi, literally ‘around’) has
been fronted to the beginning of the clause for prominence or emphasis.

NOTE. In the course of time the preverbs in unmarked position came to be combined with
their verbs, though the identity of each element is long apparent in many of the dialects.
Thus, in Modern German the primary accent is still maintained on some verbal roots, and
in contrast with cognate nouns the prefix carries weak stress: ertéilen ‘distribute’, Úrteil

333
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

‘judgment’. The steps toward the combination of preverb and verbal root have been
described for the dialects, for example, Greek, in which uncombined forms as well as
combined forms are attested during the period of our texts.

NOTE. In the attested IE dialects:

- Preverbs which remained uncombined came to be treated as adverbs.
- Combinations of preverbs plus verbs, on the other hand, eventually came to function like
unitary elements.
The two different positions of preverbs in early texts led eventually to different word
classes.
SENTENCE PARTICLES
Particles were also used to relate sentences and clauses (J. Friedrich 1959):

takku LÚ.ULÙLU- EL.LUM QA.AZ.ZU našma GÌR-ŠU kuiški

if man free his-hand or his-foot someone

tuu̯arnizzi nušše 20 GÍN KUBABBAR paai

he-breaks Ptc.-to-him 20 shekels silver he-gives

‘If anyone breaks the hand or foot of a freeman, then he must give him twenty
shekels of silver.’
Particles like the initial word in this example indicate the kind of clause that will
follow and have long been well described. The function of particles like nu is not,
however, equally clear.
NOTE. Dillon and Götze related nu and the use of sentence connectives to similar particles
in Old Irish (Dillon 1947). Such particles introduce many sentences in Old Irish and have led
to compound verb forms in this VSO language. Delbrück had also noted their presence in
Vedic (1888).

Since introductory šu and ta were more frequent than was nu in the older Hittite
texts, scholars assumed that sentences in IE were regularly introduced by these
sentence connectives. And Sturtevant proposed, as etymology for the anaphoric
pronoun, combinations of so- and to- with enclitic pronouns, as in the well-known
Hittite sequence ta-at, cf. IE tod, and so on (see Otten and Souček 1969 for the use
of such particles in one text).

334
 10. Sentence Syntax

It is clear that sentence connectives were used in Hittite to indicate continued

treatment of a given topic (Raman 1973). It is also found with Hittite relative
constructions, a function which may also be ascribed to Vedic sá and tád.

Compare this syntactic use of particles sá, nú, tú, in Ved. sá hovāc Gargyaḥ lit.
‘Ptc. Ptc.-said Gargyas’ tád u hovācāsuriḥ lit. ‘Ptc. Ptc. Ptc.-said-Asuri’.

NOTE. For Lehmann (1974), since this use may be accounted for through post-PIE
influences, sentence connectives may have had a minor role in PIE.

Other particles, like Hitt. takku ‘if’, had their counterparts in PIE, in this case in -
qe. This is also true for emphatic particles like Skt. íd; they were used after nouns
as well as imperatives.

10.6.2. MARKED ORDER IN SENTENCES

1. Elements in sentences can be emphasised, by marking; the chief device for such
emphasis is initial position, i.e. elements are moved leftward in a process called
fronting.
2. In unmarked position the preverb directly precedes the verb. Changes in normal
order thus provide one of the devices for conveying emphasis.
Other devices have to do with selection, notably particles which are postposed after
a marked element.
3. Emphasis can also be indicated by lexical selection.
4. Presumably other modifications might also be made, as in intonation.
The various syntactic devices accordingly provided means to introduce marking in
sentences.

10.6.3. TOPICALISATION WITH REFERENCE TO EMPHASIS

1. Like emphasis, topicalisation is carried out by patterns of arrangement, but the
arrangement is applied to coequal elements rather than elements which are moved
from their normal order.

2. Topicalisation by arrangement is well known in the study of the early IE

languages, as in the initial lines of the Homeric poems. The Iliad begins with the
noun mȇnin ‘wrath’, the Odyssey with the noun ándra ‘man’, opening both poems:
mȇnin áeide ‘Sing of the wrath’ and ándra moi énnepe ‘Tell me of the man’. The very

335
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

arrangement of moi and other enclitics occupying second position in the sentence,
in accordance with Wackernagel’s law, indicates the use of initial placement among
nominal elements for topicalisation (Lehmann 1974).

Examples (Fortson 2004) include Hitt. ḫalziššai=wa=tta DINGIRMEŠ-aš attaš

DKumarbiš ‘Kumarbi, the father of the gods, is calling you’; O.Av. sraōtū sāsnā ̊

fšə̄ŋ́hiiō suiie taštō ‘Let the bondsman (?), fashioned for benefit, hear the teachings’,
Gk. ménei tò theĩon doulíāi per en phrení ‘The divine (power), even when in
bondage, stays in the mind’, Lat. fuimus Trōes, fuit Īlium ‘We were (but no longer
are) Trojans, Troy was (but no longer is)’.
Fortson (2004): “Certain verbs, especially existential verbs (e.g., ‘there is’) but
also verbs of speaking and imperatives, preferentially occur clause-initially across
all the IE languages: Skt. āsīd rājā nalo nāma ‘there was a king named Nala’
(Mahābhārata 3.53.1), Lat. est in cōnspectū Tenedos nōtissima fāmā īnsula ‘within
sight there is a most famous island, Tenedos’ (Vergil, Aeneid 2.21-22), dialectal Old
Russian estĭ gradŭ mežu nobomŭ i zemleju ‘there is a city between heaven and earth’
(Novgorod birch bark fragment 10.1).”
NOTE. The fronted element was characteristic of certain situations of the discourse, like
the beginning of a text, the kataphora (repetition of a cohesive device at the end of a sentence,
like a pronoun catching up an antecedent) and imperatives (Ramat 1993); compare e.g. the
beginning of a typical tale ‘there was a king’, in Skt. āsīd rājā, Gk. ẽske tis … (w)annássōn,
Lith. bùvo karãlius, O.Ir. boí rí, Russ. žyl byl korol’, etc.
As these passages and many others that might be cited illustrate, the basic
sentence patterns could be rearranged by stylistic rules, both for emphasis and for
topicalisation. In this way the relatively strict arrangement of simple sentences
could be modified to bring about variety and flexibility.
3. Clause-initial position is a place of prominence for any constituent, not only for
verbs; as Hitt. irma=šmaš=kan dāḫḫun “sickness I have taken away from you”.
Topicalisation was probably a syntactic process in PIE (Fortson 2004).
4. Interrogatives, as already stated, move forward to the so-called complementiser
position, which can also be occupied by other elements, like relative pronouns or
subordinating conjunctions. The complementiser position precedes the rest of the
clausal positions proper, but this position is preceded by the topicalisation position;
if the latter is filled by a topicalised element, the complementiser is no longer clause-
initial (Fortson 2004).

336
 10. Sentence Syntax

Some examples are Hitt. ammuqq=a kuit ḫarkun ‘And also (that) which I had”,
Ved. jātám yád enam apáso ádhārayan ‘when the craftsmen held him, just born’,
O.Av. naēnaēstārō yaϑənā vohunąm mahī ‘since we are non-scorners of good
things’, fēstō diē sī quid prodēgeris ‘if you splurge a bit on a holiday’.
Topicalisation usually consists of one constituent or subconstituent, but it can be
more complex: Ved. áher yātram kám apaśya indra ‘which avenger of the
snake you saw, o Indra?’ ádevena mánasā yó riṣaṇyáti ‘who does wrong with
impious intention’.
Cf. also from the Archaic Latin of Plautus, the subordinating conjunction sī ‘if’ can
be preceded by some or all the other clausal constituents save the verb: saluos
domum sī redierō ‘if I shall have returned home safe’, perfidia et peculātus ex urbe
et auāritia sī exulant ‘if betrayal and embezzlement and greed are exiled from the
city’ (Fortson 2004).
5. According to Clackson (2007), some early IE languages show a clear distinction
between the left-detached and fronted position in the sentence. If the sentence
includes one of the introductory particles nu, su or ta (sometimes termed S-
adverbs), then these normally precede the fronted element.
In these sentences, left-detached nominal phrases are picked up by anaphoric
pronouns in the body of the sentence. Enclitics and sentence adverbs are positioned
as if the left-detached element was absent; as, Old Irish maisse doíne ní=s toimled
(lit. glory of-men, not=of-it he-partook) ‘The glory of men, he did not partake of it’;
Lat. N. Pumidius Q.f. [11 other names omitted] heisce magistreis Venerus Iouiae
muru aedificandum coirauerunt (lit. Pumidius-nom . . . these-nom magistrates-
nom Venus-gen of-Juppiter-gen wall-acc to-be-built-acc supervised) ‘Numerius
Pumidius son of Quintus [and 11 others], these magistrates supervised the building
of a wall to belong to Venus daughter of Juppiter’.
These examples suggest that the pattern of left-detached elements at the beginning
of the sentence should probably be allowed as a possible permutation in the parent
language.
6. Right-detached nominal phrases are another common feature of old IE
languages. Constituents are placed to the right of the verb as in Gk. oũtin egō ̀
púmaton édomai metà hoĩs hetároissin ‘none will I eat last among his comrades’,
where the prepositional clause is to the right of the verb édomai ‘eat’. The object has
been fronted; the reflexive pronoun hoĩs ‘his own ones’ refers to the topic oũtin more
than the grammatical subject egō ̀ , as a rule (Ramat 1993).

337
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

The so-called ‘sentence amplification’ or ‘sentence expansion’, consists in

appositional phrases and other adjuncts tacked on to the end of a grammatical
sentence (Clackson 2007). The first verse of the Rigveda provides an example:
agním īḷe puróhitaṃ yajñáasya devám rt̥ víjam hótāraṃ ratnadhtamam (lit.
Agni-acc I-praise domestic-priest-acc sacrifice-gen god-acc sacrificer-acc invoker-
acc best-bestower of treasure-acc) ‘I praise Agni the domestic priest, god of the
sacrifice, sacrificer, invoker, best-bestower of treasure’. All of the necessary
grammatical information is contained in the first two words, which could stand on
their own as a complete sentence, and the sentence is then expanded by the addition
of five noun phrases in apposition to the accusative agním.

10.6.4. WACKERNAGEL’S LAW AND THE PLACEMENT OF CLITICS

1. One of the best known features of clausal syntax of older IE languages is the
tendency of unstressed clitic particles to appear second in their clause after the first
stressed element, a phenomenon discovered by Jacob Wackernagel in the late
nineteenth century.
Examples include (Fortson 2004) Hitt. kiēll=a parnaš ēšḫar papratar
QATAMMA pattenuddu ‘Of this house too may it likewise drive out the bloodshed
(and) uncleanliness’; Mycenaean Greek da-mo=de=mi pa-si ko-to-na-o ke-ke-me-
na-o o-na-to e-ke-e (lit. people-NOM.=conn=she-ACC. say plot-GEN. communal-
GEN. use-ACC. have-INFIN.) ‘But the people say that she has the use of the
communal plot’; Vedic  tvā mantrāḥ kavisastā vahantu ‘Let the spells recited by
the poets lead you hither’; Greek ē̃mos d’ ērigéneia phánē rhododáktulos Ēṓs ‘but
when early-born, rosy-fingered Dawn appeared’, Lat. tū autem in neruō iam iacēbis
‘But you will soon be lying in custody, Gothic fram-uh þamma sokida Peilatus
fraletan ina ‘And at this Pilate sought to release him’.
NOTE. Sometimes, however, one of these clitics appears as the third or fourth word in its
clause. Recent research, especially by the American linguist Mark Hale, has shown that
Wackernagel’s Law actually involves several processes that usually, but not always, conspire
to place unstressed particles in second position in the clause. His discoveries have explained
the exceptions to a strict formulation of the law (Fortson 2004).
2. Three types of postpositive clitics (and clitic-positioning rules) can be
distinguished (Fortson 2004):
“a. Word-level clitics modify or limit a single word or constituent, and are placed
directly after the word or the first element of the constituent. Such clitics tend to
have the function of emphasizing the word to which they are attached, or setting it

338
 10. Sentence Syntax

in some kind of contrastive relief or focus (the clitic is boldfaced): Hitt. nu=wa=za
apun=pat eši ‘occupy only that (land)’, Vedic pracyāváyanto ácyutā cid ‘the ones
who move even unmovable things’.
If the word that such a particle modifies is first in its clause, then the particle
appears (coincidentally) second in its clause: Ved. sthir cid ánnāi dayate ví
jámbhaiḥ ‘even tough food he cuts apart with his teeth’ (Rig Veda 4.7.10), Lat. hoc
quoque maleficium ‘this crime too’.
Such particles, when modifying a phrase, can often come second in the phrase, as
in Gk. én ge taĩs Thḗbais ‘in all of Thebes indeed’.
NOTE. Some clitics, such as the descendants of PIE -qe, and, can act as word-level clitics
as well as sentence connectors.
b. Sentence-connective clitics conjoin or disjoin clauses or sub-clausal
constituents. Examples of these clitics are PIE -qe, and, and -we, or. They are
attached to the first word of the constituent or clause being conjoined or disjoined,
whether that is a single word (Ved. ágna índras ca ‘o Agni and Indra’), a phrase
(Lat. silua alta Iouis lūcusue Diānae ‘the high forest of Jupiter or the grove of
Diana’), or a clause (Old Avestan yā ̊ zī ā ̊ ŋharə̄ yā ̊ scā həṇtī yā ̊ scā mazdā buuaiṇtī
‘indeed (those) who are and who will be, o Mazda’).
NOTE. A more complicated example is explained by Clackson (2007) from “Ved. utá vā yó
no marcáyād ánāgasaḥ (lit. and part rel-NOM. us-ACC. harm-OPT. innocent-ACC.-Pl.) ‘Or
also who would harm innocent us…’ There are two enclitics, the disjunctive particle vā, which
follows the left-detached slot, and the personal pronoun nas following the relative pronoun,
which occupies the ‘front’ slot (the pronoun nas appears as no by a process of sandhi).
It should be noted that the position of the particle vā, which has scope over the whole
sentence following the left-detached element, is exactly paralleled by the behaviour of
connectives and adverbs with scope over the sentence in Greek, which stand immediately
after the left-detached element. Hale (1987a and 1987b) collected evidence for second-
position enclitics in Indo-Iranian and showed that, in general, enclitics with scope over the
sentence and connectives occurred after left-detached elements, which he refers to as the
topic position, whereas enclitic pronouns were placed after the fronted element. Hale claims
that the behaviour of these two different sets of enclitics reflects an inherited difference
between the two sentence positions.”
c. Sentential clitics are clitics whose scope is a whole clause or sentence. These
include the unstressed personal pronouns as well as a variety of sentential adverbs
that serve expressive functions and are often untranslatable into English. They are
positioned in various ways. Some are placed after the first stressed word in a
sentence and any emphatic or sentence-connective clitics associated with that word,

339
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

while others (called “special clitics” in the technical literature) are positioned after
a particular syntactic structural position in the clause. If the first word in a sentence
is a proclitic, that is, an unstressed word that attaches phonologically to a following
stressed word, the sentential clitic will of course not come directly after it, as in Gk.
eks hēméōn gár phāsi kák’ émmenai ‘for they say that bad things are from us’,
where the proclitic eks ‘from’ is not a proper phonological host for the clitic gár.
Sentential clitics occur not infrequently in strings or chains: Ved. ná v u etán
mriyase ‘indeed you do not die thereby’; Gk. ē̃ rhá nú moí ti píthoio 'may you
indeed now trust me somewhat’. In Vedic utá vā yó no marcáyād ánāgasaḥ ‘or
also who would do wrong to us the innocents’, where the pronominal clitic nas (no)
‘us’ is in the second position before the topicalized part, while the disjunctive clitic
vā, PIE -w, (and ca, PIE -qe) take the second position within the topicalized part.”
3. There are so-called “preferential hosts”, which are fronted rather than detached,
and which are not followed by enclitics in second position, which is apparently a
persistent exception to Wackernagel’s Law in languages like Sanskrit, Greek or
Latin. Adams (1994) explained it this way:
“Unemphatic pronouns in Classical Latin prose, far from always being placed
mechanically in the second position of their colon, are often attracted to particular
types of hosts, namely antithetical terms, demonstratives / deictics, adjectives of
quantity and size, intensifiers, negatives, temporal adverbs and imperatives. I have
suggested that what these hosts have in common is their focused character, and have
accordingly argued that enclitic pronouns had tendency to gravitate towards
focused constituents. The prominent constituent serving as a host may be at the
head of its colon, in which case the clitic will indeed be second, in apparent
conformity with Wackernagel’s law. But often the host is in the second or a later
position, thereby entailing a place later than second for the pronoun.”
According to Clackson (2007), we should also include relative and interrogative
pronouns in this list of preferential hosts for enclitics. “Adams’ findings for Latin
also appear to apply well to cases of enclitic pronouns which do not follow
Wackernagel’s Law (or even Hale’s modifications of it) in Vedic Sanskrit. So for
example in Vedic ágnīṣomā yó adyá vām / idáṃ vácaḥ saparyáti (lit. Agni-and-
Soma-VOC., rel-NOM. today you-two-DAT. this-ACC. speech-ACC. he-praises)
‘Agni and Soma! The one who today hymns you this praise . . .’ Note the placement
of enclitic pronoun vām, which is unexplainable in terms of ‘second position’, but

340
 10. Sentence Syntax

can be explained if we consider the temporal adverb adyá ‘today’ as a preferential

host.
In other languages too there is evidence for breaches of Wackernagel’s Law, and
for the placement of pronominal enclitics after items identified by Adams as
preferential hosts. Consider the Greek sentence taken from Krisch (1990) and used
by him to support Hale’s arguments: Gk. autàr egṓ theós eimi, diamperès hḗ se
phulássō (lit. conn I-NOM. god-NOM. I-am, thoroughly who-NOM. you-ACC. I-
protect) ‘But I am a goddess, the one who protects you steadfastly’. Here the enclitic
se follows the relative pronoun hḗ, which comes second in the clause after the
emphatically placed adverb diamperés. The relative here can easily be seen as a
preferential host, the focussed element in its clause.”
NOTE. Clackson (2007) summarises the situation by establishing that while in Hittite no
enclitics are allowed after left-detached elements, or delayed after fronted element, in
Sanskrit, Greek and Latin sentence enclitics can stand after left-detached elements, and
pronominal enclitics may be delayed, which may therefore reflect the evolution from PIH
into Late Indo-European syntax.

10.7. PHRASE AND SENTENCE PROSODY

1. On the so-called “phonology-syntax interface”, Fortson (2004): “Words
belonging to the same constituent that start out as contiguous in the deep structure
and stay contiguous throughout the derivation will tend to be grouped together as a
single phonological unit, whereas words that only become contiguous through
certain kinds of movement sometimes do not. (…) For example, in Greek, clitics
normally receive no accent, but if two or more occur in a string, all but the last one
get accented, as in ei mḗ tís me theō̃n ‘if no one of the gods me …’. However, in a
sequence like doulíāi per en phrení ‘even in bondage in the mind’, there are two
clitics in a row but the first is not accented. The reason is that per ‘even’ emphasizes
doulíāi ‘in bondage’ and is phonologically attached to it, while en ‘in’ is a preposition
that governs phrení ‘the mind’ and is proclitic to that word. The two resultant clitic
groups [doulíāi per] and [en phrení] form two separate prosodic groups with what
is called a prosodic boundary between them. (A prosodic boundary, incidentally, is
not generally audible as a pause or other break). We conclude that the rule placing
an accent on the first of two successive clitics applies only if the two clitics belong to
the same clitic group.”
2. According to Fortson (2004), noun phrases consisting of a bare noun are much
more likely to enter into certain kinds of clitic groups than are noun phrases where

341
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

the noun is modified by another element. In punctuated Greek inscriptions,

interpuncts do not ordinarily separate a definite article from a following noun; but
an interpunct is present if the article is followed by a noun modified by another
element, indicating a stronger prosodic break between the two.
In Homer, there is a different behaviour of prepositional phrases vs. the
positioning of the sentence-connecting conjunction dé, an enclitic that normally
occurs second in its clause. If the clause begins with a prepositional phrase
consisting simply of a preposition plus bare noun, the clitic will follow the whole
phrase (e.g. eks pántōn dé ‘and of all’…), whereas if the clause begins with a more
complex phrase consisting of a preposition followed by an adjective-noun phrase,
the clitic will come in between the preposition and the rest of the phrase (e.g. dià dè
khróa kalón ‘and into the fair flesh’…). Therefore, eks pánton is prosodically
cohesive enough to function as a single word for the purposes of clitic placement,
while dià khróa kalón is not.
A similar phenomenon is found in the Old High German of Notker Labeo: a
definite article is written without an accent when preceding a simple noun phrase
(e.g. taz héiza fíur ‘the hot fire’), indicating clisis and destressing of the article, but
is written with an accent when preceding more complex noun phrases (e.g díe
uuîlsalda állero búrgô ‘the fortune of all cities’).
3. Through the study of rules and behaviour of poetic meters (metrics), another
rule appears (Fortson 2004): “In certain Greek and Roman meters, for example,
there is a rule that a sequence of two light syllables in particular verse-positions
must belong to the same word. The rule, though, has an interesting exception: a
word-break between the two syllables is allowed when one of them belongs to a
proclitic (as in the sequence ut opinione ‘that in [his] opinion’). This means that the
prosodic group consisting of proclitic plus word was tighter than that consisting of
two full-content words – tight enough to behave, for the purposes of the poetic
meter, as though there were no word-division.”

10.8. POETRY
1. In the oldest poetry, some common etymologically related Indo-European
formulae have been reconstructed; as, klewos ṇdhchitom, immortal fame (cf.
Skt. ákṣitam śrávas, Gk. kléos áphthiton, where the Skt. form is deemed older);
mega kléwos, big fame, kléwesa nerōm (<*klewesh2 h2nróm), famous deeds of
men, heroes (cf. Gk. kléa andrōn, Ved. śrávas nr̥ṇm); wesu klewos, good fame
(cf. Av. vohu sravah, O.Ir. fo chlú). The sun was called ‘the wheel of the sun’,

342
 10. Sentence Syntax

sweljosjo qeqlos, cf. Skt. sū́ryasya cakrás, zaranii.caxra-., (from PII

súwarjasja ḳaklas, see Lubotsky’s Indo-Aryan inherited lexicon, IEED, n.d.),
Gk. hēlíou kúklos (<PGk sweljohjo quqlos), O.Ice. sunnu hvél, O.E. sunnan
hweogul.
NOTE. Also, the concept “sun chariot” – a mythological representation of the sun riding in
a chariot – is typically Indo-European, corresponding with the Indo-European expansion
after the domestication of the horse and the use of wheels. Examples include the Trundholm
sun chariot of the Nordic deity, Sól, drawn by Arvak and Alsvid (see the cover image); Greek
Helios riding in a chariot, Sol Invictus depicted riding a quadriga on the reverse of a Roman
coin, and Vedic Surya riding in a chariot drawn by seven horses.
Epithets and adjectives pertaining to the gods might also be found (Beekes 1995);
as, dōtōr weswm, those who give goods, riches (cf. Skt. dāt vásūnām, Av. dāta
vaŋhvąm, Gk. dōtēres eōn), from wesus, riches, goods, from the same root as
ēsús, good.
Other formulae are not etymologically related, but still deemed of PIE origin; as,
Skt. pr̥thú śrávas, Gk. kléos eurú, ‘broad fame’; or a common name for the sun Skt.
spáśam víśvasya jágatas ‘he who spies upon the whole world’ (lit. ‘the moving one’,
or ‘the living beings’), similar to Gk. theōn skópon ēde’ kai’ andrōn ‘he who spies
upon gods and men’ (Beekes 1995, Clackson 2007).
It is possible to reconstruct formulae from a nexus of correlations, where no single
language preserves the complete formula (Clackson 2007). Watkins reconstructs
the formula pālāje wīrṓs pékewaqe (<*peh2- *wīro- *peku-), protect men and
livestock, from the correspondence of (etymologically related words underlined)
Skt. tryantām asmín grme / gm áśvam púruṣam paśúm lit. ‘protect in-this
village cow, horse, man, (and) flock-animal’ Av. ϑrāϑrāi pasuuā ̊ vīraiiā ̊ lit. ‘for
protection of-cattle (and) of-men’, Lat. pāstōrēs pecuaque salua seruāssīs lit.
‘shepherds farm-animals-and may-you-preserve’, Umb. nerf arsmo uiro pequo
castruo frif salua seritu ‘magistrates ordinances men cattle fields fruit safe let-him-
preserve’ (Clackson 2007).
2. The metrical structure of Indo-European poetic language was reconstructed by
Meillet, although his attribution of the Indo-Greek system to the parent language is
not widely accepted today. The oldest Indian and Greek poems were based on a
prosodic structure of alternating long and short syllables [see above §2.4.]:
Beekes (1995): “At the end of the line (the cadence) this alternation was strictly
regulated, whereas it was free at the beginning. Both the Indic and the Greek
systems used the caesura (word-end at a fixed place in the line at a syntactically

343
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

significant break); in both systems, too, a line had a fixed number of syllables, but a
line could also have a variant with a syllable less (catalexis). [Meillet] saw an exact
similarity between the eleven syllable line used by the Greek poetess Sappho and
the triṣṭubh of the Rigveda ( ¯ long, ˘ short, x long or short, | caesura; a begins the
cadence);
triṣṭubh x x x x | x ˘ ˘, ¯ ˘ ¯ x
Sappho ¯ ˘ ¯ x | ¯ ˘ ˘ ¯ ˘ ¯ x
Meillet’s theory was further developed by Roman Jakobson, who believed that the
oldest Slavic metric system was comparable to the one Meillet described, and
derived from an Indo-European decasyllabic line. A similar continuation could be
seen in a verse-tipe utilized in Old Irish.”
It is probable then that the Proto-Indo-European verse consisted of a fixed number
of syllables, as was the case with Avestan. Longer lines would have contained a
caesura (division between phrases).
Beekes (1995) takes as example of PIE poetry a stanza from a hymn of Zarathustra
in Gatha-Avestan (Yasna 44.4), with a phonetic transcription: The line consists of
four plus seven syllables (with a caesura after the fourth syllable):
Tat ϑvā pr̥sā r̥š mai vauca, Ahura:
Kas-nā dr̥ta zam ca adah nabās ca
avapastaiš, kah apah urvarās ca?
Kah vaʔatāi vanmabyas ca yaugi āsuu?
Kas-nā vahauš, Mazdā, dāmiš manahah?

This I ask Thee, tell me truthfully, O Lord:

Who has upheld the earth below and heavens [above]
from falling down who the waters and the plants?
Who to the wind and the clouds has yoked the swift [horses]?
Who, Wise One, is the founder of Good Thinking?

Beekes (1995) continues: “It is probable that this kind of song is of Indo-European
origin, for we find a parallel to it in the Edda (Alvíssmál 15):

344
 10. Sentence Syntax

Segðu mér, Alvíss, –ǫll of rǫc fira

voromc dvergr, et vitir –
hvé sú sól heitir, er siá alda synir,
heimi hveriom í.

Tell me this, Alwis –of everything in the world

I think, dwarf, that thou knowest–
What the sun is called, the sun which people see,
by all creatures of the world.
In the answer the sun is referred to, among other things, as a ‘wheel’, hvél [ see
above]. The Germanic verse here is stress verse, and is not related in this respect to
Indo-European poetry.”

10.9. NAMES OF PERSONS

4.8.1. The use of two-word compounds for personal names was common in PIE;
as, Suklewos, of good fame, with cognates found in poetic diction, cf. Gk. Eukleḗs,
and Skt. Suśráva-, or Illyr. Vescleves-.
NOTE. The use of two-word compound words for personal names is common in IE
languages (see above §10.4.2). They are found e.g. in Ger. Alf-red ‘elf-counsel’, O.H.G. Hlude-
rīch ‘rich in glory’, O.Eng. God-gifu ‘gift of God’ (Eng. Godiva), Gaul. Orgeto-rix ‘king who
harms’, Gaul. Dumno-rix ‘king of the world’, Gaul. Epo-pennus ‘horse’s head’, O.Ir. Cin-néide
(Eng. Kennedy) ‘ugly head’, O.Ind. Asva-ghosa ‘tamer of horses’, O.Ind. Asvá-medhas ‘who
has done the horse sacrifice’, O.Pers. Xša-yāršā (Gk. Xérxēs) ‘ruler of heroes’, O.Pers. Arta-
xšacā ‘whose reign is through truth/law’, Gk. Sō-krátēs ‘good ruler’, Gk. Mene-ptólemos
‘who faces war’, Gk. Hipp-archus ‘horse master’, Gk. Cleo-patra, Pátro-klos ‘from famous
lineage’, Gk. Arkhé-laos ‘who governs the people’, O.Sla. Bogu-milŭ ‘loved by god’, Sla. Vladi-
mir ‘peaceful ruler’, from volodi-mirom ‘possess the world’; etc. Individual names may
further be modified through the use of suffixes to form hypocorisms.
4.8.2. Other area in which it is suspected the retention of ancient Proto-Indo-
European personal names is the use of animal names or numerals, composed of one
stem; as Wḷqos, wolf, cf. O.Ir. Olc, O.Eng. Wulf, Gk. Lukos, Skt. Vŕka; or,
Qétwṛtos, fourth, cf. Lat. Quārta, Lith. Keturai, Russ. Četvertoj, Gk. Tetartíōn.
NOTE. The word for ‘name’ and possible Indo-European names can be found in Beekes
(1987), Markey (1981), Pinault (1982), Schmitt (1973), and Watkins (1970).
4.8.3. Further, the syntactical indication of the father’s name also dates from
Proto-Indo-European, whether by adding the name of the father in the genitive, in
the sense of ‘son of X’, or by adding a possessive adjective that is derived from the
name of the father.

345
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

NOTE. An example of the former is Hadubrand Heribrandes suno; an example of the later
is Myc. a-re-ku-tu-ru-wo e-te-wo-ke-re-we-i-jo, i.e. Alektruwōn Etewoklewehijos
‘Alektruwōn, son of Etewoklewēs’, or Russ. Nikolaj Sergejevich. Patronymics ending in -ios
(later -ius) led to what is called the nomine gentile in Rome, cf. Gaius Iulius Caesar with
Gaius = praenomen < individual name, Iulius = nomen gentile < patronymic and Caesar =
cognomen.
4.8.4. When considering the giving of names to individuals, one departs generally
from the basis of the free men.
Whereas the man is addressed using the individual name, a simple ‘oh woman’
suffices in the case of woman. “The woman is treated more as a typus, the man as
an individual”. Wackernagel (1969) makes clear that the same forms of address were
adopted for interactions with the gods.
According to Meier-Brügger (2003), to say that the Indo-Europeans were not very
different from the Romans and Greeks would not likely be too far from the mark. In
Rome, women generally carried only the nomen gentile, cf. Cornelia, Julia, etc. In
the case of the Greeks, most names of women are simply feminine forms of
masculine names of individuals, e.g. Myc. a-re-ka-sa-da-ra, i.e Aleksandrā
(corresponding to Aleks-anōr ‘who fights off men’), Hom. Andromákhē, from
Andrómakhos ‘who fights with men’, etc.

346
 PART IV
TEXTS &
DICTIONARY

ETYMOLOGY

By Fernando López-Menchero
 Appendix I: Indo-European in Use

APPENDIX I: INDO-EUROPEAN IN USE

I.1. KOMTLOQJOM (CONVERSATION)
Common expressions in Indo-European include:

English Eurōpājóm
hello! alā! / gheuse!
dear Peter: qeime Petre/ qīmé Petre:
welcome crātós / sucṃtós tū
good day latom ēsúm
good morning wēsrom ēsúm
good afternoon / evening wesprom ēsúm
good night noqtim ēsúm
how are you? qotā wḷḗjesi?
I am fine wḷējō sū
Who are you? qis essi?/ qis tū?
Whose (son) are you? qesjo essi?/ qesjo tū?
what is your name? qota kluwḗjesi? lit. ‘how are you heard?’
what is your name? qid esti tebhei nōmṇ?
my name is Peter kluwējō Pertos lit. ‘I am heard Peter’
my name is Peter meghei Petros nōmṇ
pleased to meet you gaudhējō tewe gnōtim
please chedhjō lit. ‘I ask you’
thanks méitimons / moitmom
thanks (I give you) prijēsna / prósēdjom (tebhei agō)
I thank you prijējō tewom
you are welcome, sir esti sū, potei
excuse me ṇgnōdhi
sorry/pardon me parke
I am sorry kesdō
don’t worry mē koisāje

349
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

good bye, darling sḷwḗj [sḷwēje], prijótəma

good luck kobom ēsúm
yes dā / jāi / ne-(ghi)
indeed nem-pe / ita tod
no nē / nei
alright tagtéī
attention probhoudhos
where is the door qodhei dhworis?
here is what I asked kei esti jod pṛkóm
what is this? qid (esti) tod?
this is food pitús tod (esti)
what time is it? Qā-i esti daitis?
it is true wērom tod
very good / the best bhódistom / bhódsṃom
is everything alright? solwā sū́ (ágontor)?
how old are you? qótobhos átnobhos tū?
I am ten years old dekṃ gnātós esmi lit. ‘ten born I am’
do you speak European? bhəsoi an Eurōpājóm?
I speak a little páukolom bhəmoi
I don’t understand you nē tewom peumi
tell me what you think seqe moi qid kṇsḗ jēsi
I don’t know nē woida
shut up takḗj [takēje] / takḗjete
sit down sisde (sg.) / sísdete (pl.)
come here cemj [cəmje] kom-ke
I'm going right now nū ghenghō kom
what do you do or study? qóterom ghléndhesi an drā́ jesi?
are they tired? An/ nom/ qid ləgḗjonti?
are they married? An/ nom/ qid kom jugḗr/jugrór?
I love women lubhējō pelū dhḗmonāns / cenāns

350
 Appendix I: Indo-European in Use

write here your address deikom skreibhe kei tewe

I live in the Main Street Stoighei Magnéi ceiwō / trebhō
Lucrecia and I are friends Lukretjā egṓqe ámeikes smes / ámeike
swes
the cat mews in the garden kattā ghortei mijaluti
the dog bites the cat kattām mordḗjeti kwōn
the woman walks with the cat kattã dhḗmonā alā́ jetor
I see the head of the cat kattās dṛkō ghebhlām
Where is the train? qodhei esti douknom?
the train is here douknom (esti) kei
I want to eat fish welmi piskim ghostum
do you want to sleep with me? welsi mojo sweptum?
yes, I wish for it jāi, moksi gherijāi
no, you stink / smell bad nē, smérdesi / bhrḗgjesi dus
it is hot! qām kalḗjeti! lit. how hot is it!
it is cold! qām srīgḗjeti! lit. how cold is it!
I go swimming to the lake lakum eimi dhochei snātum qāqei
everyday
can I smoke? moghō (an) smeughtum?
may I smoke? móghnijom meghei an smeughtum
(esti)? / esti moi smeughtum?
smoking prohibited smeughtum wetānóm
happy new year ghoilom newom atnom
I agree with everything that you solwei mənjō kom, jod dhghjéstenei
explained me yesterday in your bhéresi dewtlei peri
mail
I thank you for the interest that méndhesi prijejō te, jobhi áiwesi prōd
you always have to carry on steightum awḗjēsi

NOTE. About the sentence “is it possible to smoke?”, constructed with the verb esti,
compare Lat. est in Ovid (Metamorphoses Book III, 479) quod tangere non est, “as it is not
possible to touch”; also Virgil est cernere, “it can be seen”; also, for Gk. estì(n), “it is possible”,
compare Lucian (The Parliament of the Gods, 12) Ἔστιν, ὦ Ἑρμῆ, “is it possible, Hermes”.

351
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

I.2. HORATJOSJO KANMṆ (HORATII CARMINVM)

Liber primus – XIV. The translation tries to respect the original Asclepiad metrical
pattern.
NOTE. It takes into account the information on <http://e-
spacio.uned.es/fez/eserv.php?pid=bibliuned:Epos-4B3E2DFB-2CD0-30D4-D45C-
87D42540B962&dsID=PDF>.
Eurōpājóm
Ō nāu, an mari isonti te prōd ati
Neuwolmōs? qid agēs? Isri ghṇde stipúm
Kopnom; dṛknija nē twoi
Rēsplighstós nocós tewe
Bhod masdōs érinōs bhrikotwoisotã
Ádtempnāsqe krops?; todper ṇwerwonās
Moghsēnt edli kareinās
Per teutum dhúnijom choróm
Pontom? Sekla ghi nē senti tebhei sḷwa
Nē deiwons itim ámghessi gháwēsi tū
Dhanwos dā genos atlā
Loukogn eti pontik
Gentim nōmṇqe morknóm tewe sei bhledēs
Nawtās bhéidheti nē qrumnapikēbhi qid
Bhīlús. Wentowojom tod
An tū nē séqesoi, kawḗi
Prīsnim jā bhudhis oghlos cərús bhūs meghei
Nū ghoidhos prijakoisāqe ka leghwa nē
Leukns énteri ghustéi
Leinois plākoní Qékladṇs
NOTE. The form dhanwos has been reconstructed according to the Germanic form for
convenience in metrics, instead of an older common dhanus (found in Old Indian and
Hittite).

352
 Appendix I: Indo-European in Use

Latin (original) English

O navis, referent in mare te novi O luckless bark! new waves will force you back
Fluctus: o quid agis? fortiter occupa To sea. O, haste to make the haven yours!
Portum: nonne vides, ut E'en now, a helpless wrack,
Nudum remigio latus, You drift, despoil'd of oars;
Et malus celeri saucius Africo, The Afric gale has dealt your mast a wound;
Antennaeque gemant? ac sine funibus Your sailyards groan, nor can your keel sustain,
Vix durare carinae Till lash'd with cables round,
Possint imperiosius A more imperious main.
Aequor? non tibi sunt integra lintea: Your canvass hangs in ribbons, rent and torn;
Non Di, quos iterum pressa voces malo. No gods are left to pray to in fresh need.
Quamvis Pontica pinnus, A pine of Pontus born
Silvae filia nobilis. Of noble forest breed,
Jactes et genus, et nomen inutile: You boast your name and lineage—madly blind
Nil pictis timidus navita puppibus Can painted timbers quell a seaman's fear?
Fidit, Tu, nisi ventis Beware! or else the wind
Debes ludibrium, cave. Makes you its mock and jeer.
Nuper sollicitum, quae mihi taedium, Your trouble late made sick this heart of mine,
Nunc desiderium, curaque non levis, And still I love you, still am ill at ease.
Interfusa nitentis O, shun the sea, where shine
Vites aequora Cycladas. The thick-sown Cyclades!

NOTE. Translation in English by John Conington (Horace. The Odes and Carmen
Saeculare of Horace, 1882). Taken from <http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/>.

353
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

I.3. THE NEW TESTAMENT IN INDO-EUROPEAN

The original in Greek as well as Old Latin versions have been taken into account.

I.3.1. PATER NOS (LORD’S PRAYER)

Eurōpājóm English Latine Ελληνικά

Pater Nos, Our Father, who Pater noster, qui Πάτερ ἡμῶν ὁ ἐν
kémeloisi jos art in heaven, es in caelis: τοῖς οὐρανοῖς·
essi,
Nōmṇ Hallowed be thy sanctificetur ἁγιασθήτω τὸ
sqénetoru tewe. Name. Nomen Tuum; ὄνομά σου·
Regnom Thy kingdom adveniat Regnum ἐλθέτω ἡ βασιλεία
cémjetōd tewe. come. Tuum; σου·
Dhidhḗtoru Thy will be done, fiat voluntas Tua, γενηθήτω τὸ
woljā Téwijā, θέλημά σου,
ita kémelei jota On earth as it is in sicut in caelo, et in ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ
pḷtáwijāi. heaven. terra. ἐπὶ γῆς·
Qāqodjūtenom Give us this day Panem nostrum τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸν
bharsjom our daily bread. cotidianum da ἐπιούσιον δὸς ἡμῖν
ṇseróm edjḗw nobis hodie; σήμερον·
dəsdhi ṇsmei
joqe dhḷeghlāns And forgive us our et dimitte nobis καὶ ἄφες ἡμῖν τὰ
ṇserns parke, trespasses, debita nostra, ὀφειλήματα ἡμῶν,
swāi skéletbhos As we forgive Sicut et nos ὡς καὶ ἡμεῖς
párkomos. those who dimittimus ἀφίεμεν τοῖς
trespass against debitoribus ὀφειλέταις ἡμῶν·
us. nostris;
Enim mē ṇsmé And lead us not et ne nos inducas καὶ μὴ εἰσενέγκῃς
péritlōi enke into temptation, in tentationem; ἡμᾶς εἰς πειρασμόν,
prōd,
mō úpelēd But deliver us sed libera nos a ἀλλὰ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς
noseje nos. from evil. Amen Malo. Amen ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ.
Estōd. ἀμήν.

354
 Appendix I: Indo-European in Use

I.3.2. SLWĒJE MARIJĀ (HAIL MARY)

Eurōpājóm English Latine Ελληνικά

Sḷwēje Marija, Hail Mary, full of Ave María, gratia χαῖρε, κεχαριτωμένη
crātjã plēn tū, grace, plena, Μαρία,
Arjos twojo the Lord is with Dominus tecum. ὁ Κύριος μετὰ σοῦ.
esti; thee;
suwoqn blessed art thou Benedicta tu in εὐλογημένη σὺ ἐν
cénāsu essi, among women, mulieribus, γυναιξί,
suwoqnosqe and blessed is the et benedictus και εὐλογημένος ὁ
úderosjo-two fruit of thy womb, fructus ventris καρπὸς τῆς κοιλίας
bhreugs, Jēsus. Jesus. tui, Iesus. σου
Noibha Marija, Holy Mary, Sancta Maria, Αγία Μαρία, Μήτηρ
Déiwosjo Mother of God, Mater Dei, του Θεού
Mātér,
nosbhos ōrāje pray for us ora pro nobis προσεύχου υπέρ
ágeswṇtbhos, sinners, peccatoribus, όλων ημών των
αμαρτωλών
nūqe mr̥teisqe now and at the nunc et in hora νυν και κατά την
nos daitéī. hour of our death. mortis nostrae. ώρα του θανάτου
Estōd. Amen. Amen. ημών. Ἀμήν.

I.3.2. KRÉDDHĒMI (NICENE CREED)

Eurōpājóm English Latine Ελληνικά

Oinom kréddhēmi We believe in Credo in unum Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα
Deiwom, one God, Deo, Θεὸν
Pəterṃ the Father Patrem Πατέρα
sl̥womóghmonṃ, Almighty, omnipoténtem, παντοκράτορα,
djḗwepḷtáwīdhōtṃ, Maker of factórem cæli et ποιητὴν οὐρανοῦ
heaven and terræ, καὶ γῆς,
earth,
dṛknijṓm and of all visibílium ὁρατῶν τε πάντων
sólwosom things visible ómnium et και ἀοράτων.
ṇdr̥knijṓmqe and invisible. invisibílium;
dhətorṃ;
Árjomqe Jēsum And in one Et in unum Και εἰς ἕνα κύριον
Ghristóm oinom, Lord Jesus Dóminum Iesum Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν,
Christ, Christum,

355
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

Déiwosjo Sūnúm the only- Fílium Dei τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ
oinogn̥tóm, begotten Son unigénitum, τὸν μονογενῆ,
of God,
Pətrós jom gnātóm begotten of the et ex Patre natum τὸν ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς
aiwōd prāi solwōd, Father before ante ómnia γεννηθέντα πρὸ
all worlds sæcula: πάντων τῶν αἰώνων,
(æons),
Deiwom Deiwōd, Light of Light, Deum de Deo, φῶς ἐκ φωτός, θεὸν
leuksmṇ very God of lumen de lúmine, ἀληθινὸν ἐκ θεοῦ
léuksmenes, very God, Deum verum de ἀληθινοῦ,
wērom Deiwom Deo vero,
wērōd Deiwōd,
gnātóm, nē begotten, not génitum non γεννηθέντα οὐ
dhətóm, made, factum, ποιηθέντα,
Pətréi kómbhoutis, being of one consubstantiálem ὁμοούσιον τῷ πατρί·
substance with Patri,
the Father;
josōd solwa dhaktá by whom all per quem ómnia δι' οὗ τὰ πάντα
senti; things were facta sunt; ἐγένετο·
made;
qom ṇseróm rōdhí who for us qui propter nos τὸν δι' ἡμᾶς τοὺς
dhghómenom men, and for hómines et ἀνθρώπους καὶ διὰ
kémelojos kidét, our salvation, propter nostram τὴν ἡμετέραν
came down salútem σωτηρίαν
from heaven, descéndit de κατελθόντα
cælis;
enim mēmsóm and was et incarnátus est ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν καὶ
Noibhō Ánəmō incarnate by de Spíritu Sancto σαρκωθέντα ἐκ
wéwṛtei Marijād the Holy ex María Vírgine πνεύματος ἁγίου καὶ
eksí ándhesād, Ghost of the et homo factus Μαρίας τῆς
enim dhghomōn Virgin Mary, est; παρθένου καὶ
geneto; and was made ἐνανθρωπήσαντα,
man;
eti krukidhētós he was crucifíxus étiam σταυρωθέντα τε
ṇsmei prōd Pontjei crucified for pro nobis sub ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἐπὶ
upo Pilatei, qn̥tet us under Póntio Piláto, Ποντίου Πιλάτου,
sepēlitosqe esti, Pontius Pilate, passus et καὶ παθόντα καὶ
and suffered, sepúltus est; ταφέντα,
and was
buried,

356
 Appendix I: Indo-European in Use

joqe ati tritjei and the third et resurréxit καὶ ἀναστάντα τῇ

stéstōwe diwí, day he rose tértia die τρίτῃ ἡμέρα κατὰ
skréibhmona ad again, secúndum τὰς γραφάς, καὶ
kémelomqe according to Scriptúras; et ἀνελθόντα εἰς τοὺς
skandwṓs, Pətros the Scriptures, ascéndit in οὐρανοὺς, καὶ
déksijāi sedḗjeti; and ascended cælum, sedet ad καθεζόμενον ἐκ
into heaven, déxteram Patris; δεξιῶν τοῦ πατρός
and sitteth on
the right hand
of the Father;
joqe ati kléwosē from thence et íterum καὶ πάλιν ἐρχόμενον
cémseti cīwóns he shall come ventúrus est cum μετὰ δόξης κρῖναι
mr̥wonsqe again, with glória iudicáre ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς·
kómdhēnqos; glory, to judge vivos et mórtuos;
the quick and
the dead;
qesjo regnom nē whose cuius regni non οὗ τῆς βασιλείας
antjom bhéuseti. kingdom shall erit finis; οὐκ ἔσται τέλος.
have no end.
joqe Noibhom And in the Et in Spíritum Καὶ εἰς τὸ Πνεῦμα
Ánəmom, potim Holy Ghost, Sanctum, τὸ Ἅγιον, τὸ κύριον,
ḗtrodhōtṃqe, the Lord and Dóminum et (καὶ) τὸ ζωοποιόν,
Pətrós Sūneusqe Giver of life, vivificántem: qui τὸ ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς
proilóm, who ex Patre Filióque ἐκπορευόμενον,
proceedeth procédit;
from the
Father,
qo-i Pətrē who with the qui cum Patre et τὸ σὺν πατρὶ καὶ υἱῷ
Sūnéwēqe semli Father and the Fílio simul συμπροσκυνούμενον
áisdetor enim Son together is adorátur et καὶ
magtjetor bhətós worshiped and conglorificátur; συνδοξαζόμενον, τὸ
qom próbhātṇs glorified, who qui locútus est λαλῆσαν διὰ τῶν
terqe esti. spake by the per Prophétas; προφητῶν.
prophets.
joqe oinām, In one holy Et in unam εἰς μίαν, ἁγίαν,
noibhām, catholic and sanctam καθολικὴν καὶ
kṃtísolwām apostolic cathólicam et ἀποστολικὴν
apostólejām Church; apostólicam ἐκκλησίαν·
ékklētijām. Ecclésiam.
Oinom bhətējāi we Confíteor unum ὁμολογοῦμεν ἓν
agesupomoukōi acknowledge baptísma in βάπτισμα εἰς ἄφεσιν
cadhmṇ; one baptism remissiónem ἁμαρτιῶν·
for the peccatorum
remission of
sins;

357
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

Mr̥wātibhorghom we look for the et exspecto προσδοκοῦμεν

wélpomos resurrection of resurrectionem ἀνάστασιν νεκρῶν,
saitlōmqe cītām the dead, and mortuorum et καὶ ζωὴν τοῦ
cémsontm̥. Estōd the life of the vitam ventúri μέλλοντος αἰῶνος.
world to come. sæculi. Amen. Ἀμήν.
Amen.

I.3.3. NOUDÓS SŪNÚS (PARABLE OF THE PRODIGAL SON)

Eurōpājóm English Latine Ελληνικά

11 Dhghomōn “A certain man Homo quidam Ἄνθρωπός τις
enis sū́nuwe had two sons. habuit duos εἶχεν δύο υἱούς.
eiket, filios:
12 joqe And the et dixit καὶ εἶπεν ὁ
jewísteros younger of adolescentior ex νεώτερος αὐτῶν
pətrei them said to his illis patri: Pater, τῷ πατρί, Πάτερ,
weuqét : father, ‘Father, da mihi δός μοι τὸ
Pəter, rijós give me the portionem ἐπιβάλλον μέρος
dōdhi moi portion of substantiæ, quæ τῆς οὐσίας. ὁ δὲ
aitim qā-i goods that falls me contingit. Et διεῖλεν αὐτοῖς τὸν
meghei áineti, to me.’ So he divisit illis
βίον.
joqe rēim divided to them substantiam.
ibhom widhét. his livelihood.
13 Enim nē And not many Et non post καὶ μετ' οὐ πολλὰς
péluwons days after, the multos dies, ἡμέρας συναγαγὼν
dinons pos, younger son congregatis πάντα ὁ νεώτερος
solwa gr̥lós, gathered all omnibus, υἱὸς ἀπεδήμησεν
jewísteros together, adolescentior εἰς χώραν μακράν,
sūnús rew journeyed to a filius peregre καὶ ἐκεῖ
porsótenom far country, and profectus est in διεσκόρπισεν τὴν
oigheto there wasted regionem
οὐσίαν αὐτοῦ ζῶν
londhom, his possessions longinquam, et
ἀσώτως.
idheiqe rēim with prodigal ibi dissipavit
nudét sewe living. substantiam
ghlóidotos suam vivendo
ceiwonts. luxuriose.
14 Enim qām But when he Et postquam δαπανήσαντος δὲ
solwa cesét had spent all, omnia αὐτοῦ πάντα
kom pos, there arose a consummasset, ἐγένετο λιμὸς
dhorghsús severe famine facta est fames ἰσχυρὰ κατὰ τὴν
molét in that land, valida in regione χώραν ἐκείνην, καὶ
ghrēdhus and he began to illa, et ipse αὐτὸς ἤρξατο
londhei be in want. cœpit egere. ὑστερεῖσθαι.
ólnosmi, joqe
egētum sope
bhwije.

358
 Appendix I: Indo-European in Use

15 Itaqe cālós, Then he went Et abiit, et καὶ πορευθεὶς

qismōi jugeto and joined adhæsit uni ἐκολλήθη ἑνὶ τῶν
kéiwijom himself to a civium regionis πολιτῶν τῆς χώρας
ólnosjo citizen of that illius: et misit ἐκείνης, καὶ
londhī, imqe country, and he illum in villam ἔπεμψεν αὐτὸν εἰς
sontest sent him into suam ut τοὺς ἀγροὺς αὐτοῦ
porkons pāsei his fields to pasceret porcos. βόσκειν χοίρους:
feed swine.
16 Atqe úderom And he would Et cupiebat καὶ ἐπεθύμει
skəliqāis gladly have implere ventrem χορτασθῆναι ἐκ
plḗnātum filled his suum de τῶν κερατίων ὧν
gheríjeto stomach with siliquis, quas ἤσθιον οἱ χοῖροι,
porkōs edent the pods that porci καὶ οὐδεὶς ἐδίδου
qans atqe the swine ate, manducabant: αὐτῷ.
neqis ismōi and no one gave et nemo illi
dōt. him anything. dabat.
17 Swe poti “But when he In se autem εἰς ἑαυτὸν δὲ
wṛtomnós, came to reversus, dixit: ἐλθὼν ἔφη, Πόσοι
ēgt: qotjoi himself, he Quanti μίσθιοι τοῦ πατρός
pətrós domei said, ‘How mercenarii in μου περισσεύονται
mísdhotes many of my domo patris mei ἄρτων, ἐγὼ δὲ
paskneis father’s hired abundant λιμῷ ὧδε
spréigonti, kei servants have panibus, ego ἀπόλλυμαι.
egṓ au dhəmī bread enough autem hic fame
mṛijāi! and to spare, pereo!
and I perish
with hunger!
18 ṛtos pəterṃ I will arise and surgam, et ibo ἀναστὰς
eisō mene ad, go to my father, ad patrem πορεύσομαι πρὸς
joqe ismōi and will say to meum, et dicam τὸν πατέρα μου καὶ
seksō: Pəter, him, “Father, I ei: Pater, ἐρῶ αὐτῷ, Πάτερ,
kémelom have sinned peccavi in ἥμαρτον εἰς τὸν
proti against heaven cælum, et coram οὐρανὸν καὶ
tewomqe antí and before you, te: ἐνώπιόν σου,
memlai,
19 jāmi nē and I am no jam non sum οὐκέτι εἰμὶ ἄξιος
deknós egṓ, longer worthy dignus vocari κληθῆναι υἱός σου:
sūnús téwijos to be called filius tuus: fac ποίησόν με ὡς ἕνα
kluwētum: your son. Make me sicut unum τῶν μισθίων σου.
dhəsdhi me me like one of de mercenariis
swāi qimqim your hired tuis.
mísdhotom servants.”’
tewe.

359
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

20 Ita ṛtós “And he arose Et surgens venit καὶ ἀναστὰς ἦλθεν

pəterṃ and came to his ad patrem πρὸς τὸν πατέρα
ludhét sewe. father. But suum. Cum ἑαυτοῦ. ἔτι δὲ
Eti jom qeli when he was autem adhuc αὐτοῦ μακρὰν
bhewn̥tí, em still a great way longe esset, vidit ἀπέχοντος εἶδεν
pətḗr tósjope off, his father illum pater αὐτὸν ὁ πατὴρ
dṛket, joqe saw him and ipsius, et αὐτοῦ καὶ
əna kṛsonts had misericordia
ἐσπλαγχνίσθη καὶ
kómqēiljō compassion, motus est, et
δραμὼν ἐπέπεσεν
krūtós esti and ran and fell accurrens
enim kolsom on his neck and cecidit super ἐπὶ τὸν τράχηλον
petlós em kissed him. collum ejus, et αὐτοῦ καὶ
bhusājét. osculatus est κατεφίλησεν
eum. αὐτόν.
21 Wedét And the son Dixitque ei εἶπεν δὲ ὁ υἱὸς
óisosmōi said to him, filius: Pater, αὐτῷ, Πάτερ,
sūnús: Pəter, ‘Father, I have peccavi in ἥμαρτον εἰς τὸν
kémelom sinned against cælum, et coram οὐρανὸν καὶ
proti heaven and in te: jam non sum ἐνώπιόν σου,
tewomqe antí your sight, and dignus vocari οὐκέτι εἰμὶ ἄξιος
memlai: jāmi am no longer filius tuus. κληθῆναι υἱός σου.
nē deknós worthy to be
egṓ, sūnús called your son.’
téwijos
nōmnādhjom
22 nū “But the father Dixit autem εἶπεν δὲ ὁ πατὴρ
mísdhatbhos said to his pater ad servos πρὸς τοὺς δούλους
bhəto pətḗr servants, ‘Bring suos: Cito αὐτοῦ, Ταχὺ
sewe; bhersi: out the best proferte stolam ἐξενέγκατε στολὴν
prāmām robe and put it primam, et τὴν πρώτην καὶ
dhrághete on him, and put induite illum, et ἐνδύσατε αὐτόν,
togām joqe a ring on his date annulum in καὶ δότε δακτύλιον
tom woséjete, hand and manum ejus, et
εἰς τὴν χεῖρα αὐτοῦ
anom tosjo sandals on his calceamenta in
καὶ ὑποδήματα εἰς
ghéseri feet. pedes ejus:
kerpjonsqe τοὺς πόδας,
esjo dəste
pedsú:
23 kom And bring the et adducite καὶ φέρετε τὸν
piwónṃqe fatted calf here vitulum μόσχον τὸν
bhérete and kill it, and saginatum, et σιτευτόν, θύσατε
loigom joqe let us eat and be occidite, et καὶ φαγόντες
chénte, joqe merry; manducemus, et εὐφρανθῶμεν,
edēmos, joqe epulemur:
wḷdām
terpēmos,

360
 Appendix I: Indo-European in Use

24 jodqid kei for this my son quia hic filius ὅτι οὗτος ὁ υἱός
sūnús mene was dead and is meus mortuus μου νεκρὸς ἦν καὶ
dhedhuwós alive again; he erat, et revixit: ἀνέζησεν, ἦν
ēst atqe coje was lost and is perierat, et ἀπολωλὼς καὶ
ati: skm̥bnós found.’ And inventus est. Et εὑρέθη. καὶ
ēst, atqe they began to cœperunt ἤρξαντο
wṛētōr. Enim be merry. epulari. εὐφραίνεσθαι.
wḷdām
bhwijónt.
25 Agrei au “Now his older Erat autem filius ην δὲ ὁ υἱὸς αὐτοῦ
senísteros ēst son was in the ejus senior in ὁ πρεσβύτερος ἐν
sūnús: joqe field. And as he agro: et cum ἀγρῷ: καὶ ὡς
jom ludhét came and drew veniret, et ἐρχόμενος ἤγγισεν
enim domom near to the appropinquaret τῇ οἰκίᾳ, ἤκουσεν
nedijeto, house, he heard domui, audivit συμφωνίας καὶ
kómkantum music and symphoniam et χορῶν,
léigṃqe dancing. chorum:
kluwét.
26 Joqe neqom So he called one et vocavit unum καὶ
móghuwom of the servants de servis, et προσκαλεσάμενος
ghaulós pṛket and asked what interrogavit ἕνα τῶν παίδων
qid ghāi-ke these things quid hæc essent. ἐπυνθάνετο τί ἂν
bhuwont meant. εἴη ταῦτα.
27 Isqe sqet: And he said to Isque dixit illi: ὁ δὲ εἶπεν αὐτῷ ὅτι
bhrātēr tewe him, ‘Your Frater tuus Ὁ ἀδελφός σου
cēme enim brother has venit, et occidit ἥκει, καὶ ἔθυσεν ὁ
piwonṃ patḗr come, and pater tuus πατήρ σου τὸν
two chone because he has vitulum μόσχον τὸν
loigom, received him saginatum, quia σιτευτόν, ὅτι
jodqid tom safe and sound, salvum illum ὑγιαίνοντα αὐτὸν
cīwóm your father has recepit.
ἀπέλαβεν.
solwom killed the fatted
ghōde. calf.’

28 kṛditós autim “But he was Indignatus est ὠργίσθη δὲ καὶ

esti, joqe nē angry and autem, et οὐκ ἤθελεν
en eitum would not go in. nolebat introire. εἰσελθεῖν. ὁ δὲ
wélwelāt. Ar Therefore his Pater ergo illius πατὴρ αὐτοῦ
patḗr ejos father came out egressus, cœpit ἐξελθὼν παρεκάλει
eksodlós, and pleaded rogare illum. αὐτόν.
bhwijét im with him.
chestum.

361
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

29 Atqe se So he answered At ille ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς

protiweqonts, and said to his respondens, εἶπεν τῷ πατρὶ
patréi bhato father, ‘Lo, dixit patri suo: αὐτοῦ, Ἰδοὺ
sewe: edke these many Ecce tot annis τοσαῦτα ἔτη
totjons atnons years I have servio tibi, et δουλεύω σοι καὶ
sístāmi twei been serving numquam οὐδέποτε ἐντολήν
upo, joqe you; I never mandatum σου παρῆλθον, καὶ
neqom dikām transgressed tuum præterivi:
ἐμοὶ οὐδέποτε
tewe klusóm your et numquam
ἔδωκας ἔριφον ἵνα
dus, atqe commandment dedisti mihi
neqom at any time; and hædum ut cum μετὰ τῶν φίλων
meghei yet you never amicis meis μου εὐφρανθῶ:
ghaidom gave me a epularer.
desta wḷdāi young goat, that
ámik(bh)is I might make
senutéwijāi. merry with my
friends.
30 Mō ita tom But as soon as Sed postquam ὅτε δὲ ὁ υἱός σου
sūnús tewe this son of filius tuus hic, οὗτος ὁ
kei, rēim yours came, qui devoravit καταφαγών σου
loutsāis crālós who has substantiam τὸν βίον μετὰ
cēme, devoured your suam cum πορνῶν ἦλθεν,
ólnosmōi livelihood with meretricibus, ἔθυσας αὐτῷ τὸν
píwonṃ harlots, you venit, occidisti σιτευτὸν μόσχον.
loigom killed the fatted illi vitulum
chonta. calf for him.’ saginatum.
31 Atqe oiso “And he said to At ipse dixit illi: ὁ δὲ εἶπεν αὐτῷ,
tosmōi him, ‘Son, you Fili, tu semper Τέκνον, σὺ
weuqét: are always with mecum es, et πάντοτε μετ' ἐμοῦ
suneu, tū me, and all that omnia mea tua εἶ, καὶ πάντα τὰ
áiwesi mojo I have is yours. sunt: ἐμὰ σά ἐστιν:
essi, enim
solwa menja
téwija senti.
32 Wḷdm autim It was right that epulari autem, εὐφρανθῆναι δὲ
terptum, joqe we should make et gaudere καὶ χαρῆναι ἔδει,
gaudhētum merry and be oportebat, quia ὅτι ὁ ἀδελφός σου
opos ēst, glad, for your frater tuus hic οὗτος νεκρὸς ἦν
jodqid brother was mortuus erat, et καὶ ἔζησεν, καὶ
bhrātēr tewe dead and is revixit; perierat, ἀπολωλὼς καὶ
kei alive again, and et inventus est. εὑρέθη.
dhedhuwós was lost and is
ēst atqe coje found.’”
ati; skm̥bnós
ēst, atqe
wṛētōr.

362
 Appendix I: Indo-European in Use

I.3.4. NEWOM SUWÉISTUNJOM (NEW TESTAMENT) – JŌHANĒS, 1,

1-14

Eurōpājóm English Latine Ελληνικά

1 Pārjei Wṛdhom In the in principio erat Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ
bhewet, joqe beginning was Verbum et λόγος, καὶ ὁ
Wṛdhom the Word, and Verbum erat λόγος ἦν πρὸς
Deiwei ēst ensí, the Word was apud Deum et τὸν θεόν, καὶ
joqe Deiwos with God, and Deus erat θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.
Wṛdhom ēst. the Word was Verbum
God.
2 Ensí id pārjei He was in the hoc erat in οὗτος ἦν ἐν
Deiwei ēst. beginning with principio apud ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν
God. Deum θεόν.
3 Ī solwa gegnḗr All things were omnia per ipsum πάντα δι' αὐτοῦ
enim id aneu made through facta sunt et sine ἐγένετο, καὶ
neqid geneto Him, and ipso factum est χωρὶς αὐτοῦ
josjo gégone. without Him nihil quod ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν.
nothing was factum est ὃ γέγονεν
made that was
made.
4 Ismi cītā In Him was life, in ipso vita erat ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν,
bhewet, joqe and the life was et vita erat lux καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ
cītā ēst the light of men. hominum φῶς τῶν
dhghómonom ἀνθρώπων:
leuks.
5 Itaqe leuks And the light et lux in tenebris καὶ τὸ φῶς ἐν τῇ
skotei skéjeti, shines in the lucet et tenebrae σκοτίᾳ φαίνει,
joqe oisām darkness, and eam non καὶ ἡ σκοτία
skotos nē turét. the darkness conprehenderunt αὐτὸ οὐ
did not κατέλαβεν.
comprehend it
6 Bhūt wīrós There was a fuit homo missus Ἐγένετο
Deiwō man sent from a Deo cui nomen ἄνθρωπος
sesentnós God, whose erat Iohannes ἀπεσταλμένος
Jōhanēs name was John. παρὰ θεοῦ,
nṓmənē. ὄνομα αὐτῷ
Ἰωάννης:

363
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

7 Tristimonjōi This man came hic venit in οὗτος ἦλθεν εἰς

ludhét se, for a witness, to testimonium ut μαρτυρίαν, ἵνα
leukbhi bear witness of testimonium μαρτυρήσῃ περὶ
tristidhḗnts, ei the Light, that perhiberet de τοῦ φωτός, ἵνα
oljoi ijo all through him lumine ut omnes πάντες
kréddhēsēnt. might believe. crederent per πιστεύσωσιν δι'
illum αὐτοῦ.
8 Nē olno leuks, He was not that non erat ille lux οὐκ ἦν ἐκεῖνος
immō, leukbhi Light, but was sed ut τὸ φῶς, ἀλλ' ἵνα
tristidhēnts. sent to bear testimonium μαρτυρήσῃ περὶ
witness of that perhiberet de τοῦ φωτός.
Light. lumine

9 Leuks wērom That was the erat lux vera ην τὸ φῶς τὸ

ēst, solwom true Light quae inluminat ἀληθινόν, ὃ
bhəneuti which gives omnem φωτίζει πάντα
dhghomonṃ, light to every hominem ἄνθρωπον,
dhoubnom kod man coming venientem in ἐρχόμενον εἰς
cémjontm̥ into the world. mundum τὸν κόσμον.
10 Dhoubnei ēst, He was in the in mundo erat et ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ἦν,
enim ijo world, and the mundus per καὶ ὁ κόσμος δι'
dhoubnom world was made ipsum factus est αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο,
gegner, atqe nē through Him, et mundus eum καὶ ὁ κόσμος
im dhoubnom and the world non cognovit αὐτὸν οὐκ ἔγνω.
gnōt. did not know
Him.
11 Somobhos He came to His in propria venit εἰς τὰ ἴδια
ludhét, atqe im own, and His et sui eum non ἦλθεν, καὶ οἱ
somói ghədónt own did not receperunt ἴδιοι αὐτὸν οὐ
nei ad. receive Him. παρέλαβον.
12 Jotjoi im But as many as quotquot autem ὅσοι δὲ ἔλαβον
ghədónt, received Him, receperunt eum αὐτόν, ἔδωκεν
moghtim to them He gave dedit eis αὐτοῖς ἐξουσίαν
tobhos the right to potestatem filios τέκνα θεοῦ
gendhjōi dōt become Dei fieri his qui γενέσθαι, τοῖς
Diwoputla, esjo children of God, credunt in πιστεύουσιν εἰς
nōmṇ to those who nomine eius τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ,
kréddhēntbhos, believe in His
name:

364
 Appendix I: Indo-European in Use

13 joi nē ésenos, who were born, qui non ex οἳ οὐκ ἐξ

neqe mēms not of blood, sanguinibus αἱμάτων οὐδὲ ἐκ
woljās, neqe nor of the will of neque ex θελήματος
wīr woljās the flesh, nor of voluntate carnis σαρκὸς οὐδὲ ἐκ
immō Déiwosjo the will of man, neque ex θελήματος
gnātṓs sonti. but of God. voluntate viri sed ἀνδρὸς ἀλλ' ἐκ
ex Deo nati sunt θεοῦ
ἐγεννήθησαν.
14 Joqe Wṛdhom And the Word et Verbum caro Καὶ ὁ λόγος
mēmsóm became flesh factum est et σὰρξ ἐγένετο
wṛstóm esti, and dwelt habitavit in καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν
enim pḷtomóm among us, and nobis et vidimus ἐν ἡμῖν, καὶ
ṇsmí dhēke ení, we beheld His gloriam eius ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν
enim ejos glory, the glory gloriam quasi δόξαν αὐτοῦ,
qedos dṛkomes, as of the only unigeniti a Patre δόξαν ὡς
qedos swāi begotten of the plenum gratiae
μονογενοῦς
oinognosjo Father, full of et veritatis
παρὰ πατρός,
Pətrós wḗrotjō grace and truth.
crātjāqe πλήρης χάριτος
plēnóm. καὶ ἀληθείας.

NOTE. The form gégnisset is clearly taken from Latin; see

<http://revistas.ucm.es/index.php/CFCA/article/view/CFCA7676130275A/3281>.

I.4. THE RIGVEDA IN INDO-EUROPEAN

Eurōpājóm Sanskrit English

Progṇpotis dā-toi Prajapatir vai idam-agre In the beginning was
pārjei ēst asit Prajapati (the Creator),
tosjo woqs dwitjā ēst Prajapatir vai idam-agre With Him was the Vak
asit (the Word),
Woqs dā Pérəmom Vak vai Paramam And the Vak (the
Bhlaghmṇ Brahma Word) was verily the
Supreme Brahman.
NOTE. It is possible that the Logos concept of Greek philosopher Philo of
Alexandria (adopted in John 1) was influenced by the Vak of Hindu philosophy.

365
 Appendix II: Late Indo-European Lexicon

APPENDIX II: LATE INDO-EUROPEAN LEXICON

This lexicon is available online with regular updates and as automatic dictionary-
translator at <http://indo-european.info/>, and an automatic online Proto-Indo-
European dictionary-translator is available at <http://indo-
european.info/dictionary-translator/>.
An English – Indo-European dictionary is found in Appendix II.1.
For detailed information on the Proto-Indo-European words, its etymology, usage,
root and meaning, see the following section, Appendix II.2.
For detailed forms from descendant languages used for the reconstruction of PIE
words, see Appendix II.3.
NOTE. The Appendix II.3 has not been included in this revision. Visit <http://indo-
european.info/> for all downloads related to this grammar.

FORMAL ASPECTS
The reconstructed artifice schwa *ə (still widely used in modern IE linguistics, cf.
e.g. Ringe 2006, de Vaan 2008, etc.) does not represent an actual vowel. It might
represent in this reconstructed post-Late Indo-European lexicon:
1) The schwa primum, vocalic output of the older merged laryngeal *H,
assimilated to a different vowel in the different IEDs. That laryngeal schwa is
omitted if it is word-initial and appears alone, as in *H3bhruH, or if the preceding
syllable has full vocalism, as in *klamrós, but it is written elsewhere, as in *p∂ter-
. See The Loss of Laryngeals, and Conventions Used in This Book.
2) The results of the so-called Saussure effect. See The Loss of Laryngeals.
3) The schwa secundum, reconstructed for irregular outputs of groups that
included resonants, i.e. *C(°)RV or *C(°)R(°)C, due to auxiliary vowels inserted in
LIE times. For this alternating auxiliary vowel, a dot below is more commonly
written for resonants plus vowel, i.e. CṚV. See Phonology, especially §2.3.
Some supposed late remains of the LIE merged laryngeal in groups including
resonants, i.e. *CRHC, *CHRC, *CRHV, *CHRV, etc. are not written down by
convention. A selection is made of the most common west IE evolution; as, Ita., Cel.
gnātós (with an evolution equivalent to Gk. gnētós) for an older gṇəʔtós, born.
See above The Loss of Laryngeals, and §2.1.
Middle-passive endings are written with the 1st sg. -ai, -oi, which correspond to
NWIE -ar. See above §7.2.2.

367
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

Sometimes, forms different to those found in this book are intentionally

reconstructed in this lexicon, to complement each other and give an overall image of
the possible reconstructions; as, -e- reduplicated athem. dhédhēmi, shown in this
lexicon as -i- reduplicated athem. dhídhēmi, and non-reduplicated, them. dhakjō.
See §7.4.2. Class BII.
Dubious reconstructions of stative verbs, added in this edition, (see §7.4.2, Class
AIIIe vs. Class IIIo) include awējō, bhəwējō, gāudhējō, ghəbhējō, lubhējō;
while some appear to be bivalent -ejō-/-ējō-: dḷghjō, ṛkjō, tṇjō.
Heteroclite as well as athematic (especially root) nouns are shown according to the
general reconstruction paradigms. Some difficult choices have been made, though,
if more than one form is found. See §§4.6, 4.7.
On the alternative vocalic reconstruction a/o, as in mari/mori, the Leiden school
(de Vaan among others) defends a phonetic law Lat. a < PIE *o (free and
accompanied by certain consonants); as, badius, canis, fax, lacus, lanius, manus,
malleus, mare, uagus, ualua, uas, uaris, etc. of which badius, canis, lacus, mare,
and maybe manus have correlatives with root vowel O.Ir. o. However, we have some
clear counterexamples; as mora, mola, moneō, monīle and maybe focus, forō.
According to de Vaan, cohors, dolō, dolus, domus, folium, glomus, hodiē, (h)olus,
noceō, oculus, odor, onus, opus, ouis, podium, probus, procus, rota, and toga
do not accomplish the phonetic conditions to be counterexamples.

368
II.1. ENGLISH – LATE INDO- agonise cl̥nāmi
agreement koimā
EUROPEAN agreement meitrom
air porā
English Late Indo-European akin koinós
a bit pau alas troughi
abandoned ermos alas wai
abound spreigō alder álesnos
about per(i), per(ti) alder wernā
above upsi alike jota sei
absent apowesonts alive cīwós
absolute pérəmos all oljoi oljāi olja
absolutely yes nāi allergy dedrus
abundance mūris alleyway smoughos
abundant chonós allied soqjós
abundant opnis allow tr̥ knō
abyss n̥ bhudhnóm allure doljō
acarian koris along práiteri
accelerate spreudō already jāmi
accordance sm̥itis also toqe
acorn céln̥ dis altar āsā
acorn medjom always áiw(es)i
acquire kwāimi ambush énsēdjom
acquire potijai ancestor strutjos
acquit luwō apó ancient prīskos
activate kjējō and atqe
active strēnwos and enim
Adam's apple croghos and joqe
address deikos and qe
adhere gleibhō and also itaqe
adjust árarjō and not neqe
administrate médneumi angelica qondhros
adorn mondō angle qedos
adorn peikō animal cīwotos
adult altjos animal smalos
advanced prokos ankle spr̥ os
advantage (sí)stāmi antí/prāi announce kárkarjō
affirm əgjō annoy peigō
afflict krēwō annoyance oghlos
afflict ághneumi annoying mōlestos
afflict ml̥qjō annoying trudsmós
after pos(ti) anorak kroknos
afterwards pósteri another onjos
again ati another aljos
against komtrōd anounce ml̥gājō
against proti ant mr̥ meikā
aggravate odáugjai antique ántijos
agile ágəlis anyone qisqis qidqid
agitate dhúneumi apart səni
agitate kreutō apart sēd
agitated kighrós aperture ōstjom
agitation dhūnis apparent windos
agnus castus weitēks appear mlōskō
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
appearance widā́ attention probhoudhos
appease sēdājō attract spáneumi
appease litājō auger téredhrom
appendix plighā augur kailom
apple ábelos aunt ámetā
approach (to) pl̥namaí aunt mātérterā
arch weitō autumn osēn
arch wekō avenge qínumoi
ardour aisdhom avoid leinō
arise kenō awaken bhoudhejō
arm armos axe adhos
arm bhāghus axe áksijā
arm dóusontos axe bheitlom
armour twakos axe sekūris
army korjos axe tekslā
army strātos axle aksis
around ambhí babble batā
arrange dúnāmi babble plabrājai
arrangement stāmn̥ babble lalājo
arrival ghētis baby dhēljos
arrive n̥ kneumi back awo
arrow kēlom back gurnos
art artis back retrōd
article melmn̥ backbone wr̥ aghmn̥
articulation anglos backward ápōqos
as qām backwards postrōd
as big swālikos bad dus
ash āsos bad edwolōn
ash kenēs bad elkós
ashtrē oskos bad upelos
ashtree bhr̥ ksnos badger bhrogkos
ashtree ósonos badger mēlis
ask pr̥ kskō bag bholghis
asp apsā bag kṓrukos
aspect spekjēs bald kalwos
aspire wḗnāmoi ball ghroudos
ass kūlos ball golā
assigned prōtós ball gugā
assort kjājō ball orghis
asunder wī band seimā
asunder-legged wāros bandy-legged walgos
at ad banquet daps
at hand práighesto barbaric bálbalos
at least ge barefoot bhosos
at that point tām bargain wesnejō
ate ghosóm bark baubājai
atribute bhagō barley ghórsdejom
attack nikjō barley jewom
attack wr̥ gos barrel dōljom
attack wendhō basin wl̥ghis
attack (to be in) wr̥ gējō basket kistā

370
 Appendix II: Late Indo-European Lexicon
basket korbhis be sitting sedējō
basket qasjos be situated ēsmoi
basket sportā be sticked lipējō
basket woidlos be swollen oidējō
bast lubhros be swollen tumējō
bath lowtrom be swollen (to) swəlējō
bath-tub célwonom be thirsty tr̥ sējō
be bhewmi be used eukō
be esmi be violent chr̥ jō
be active, flourish wegējō be violent jeugō
be adequate plakējō be visible dr̥ kjai peri
be afraid timējō be warm tepējō
be angry eisāskai be wet mədējō
be annoying pigējō be withered mr̥ kējō
be available likējō beak rōstrom
be awake bheudhō beak sroknā
be big augējō beam tegnom
be bitter geigō beam trabhis
be born gn̥ jai bean bhabhā
be bright spl̥ndējō bear r̥ tkos
be broken lugējō bear bhermi (bherō)
be cold alghējō bear in mind mnājō
be cold srīgējō beard bhardhā
be concealed lətējō bearing bhr̥ tis
be curved wijējō beast ghwerā
be delayed stn̥ tējō beast weidr̥
be dry āsējō beast of burden jóugsmn̥ tom
be empty ghr̥ ējō beastly ghwērīnós
be expensive dápnāmi beat wəleisō
be experienced kaldējō beat up orgājō
be far (sí)stāmi apó beautiful chaisos
be favourable bhəwējō beautiful wn̥ mos
be fit wəlējō beaver bhebhros
be flat ləpējō because jod qid
be followed swemōr become
swēdhskō
be furious sājō accustomed
be glad ghərējō become vigorous kı̄́keumi
be high kelsō bed spondhā
be hot kəlējō bee bheiqlā
be interested mendhai beech bhāgos
be loaded gemō been bhūtós
be mistaken treikō beer álumn̥
be named kluwējō beer kremom
be necessary opos esti beer sudhjom
be old senējō before antí
be pregnant kuwējō before pəros
be proper dekējō before prāi
be red rudhējō before dawn anksí
be rotten pūtējō befoul sterkō
be scratched kr̥ sējō befriend (to) nínāmi
be sharp akējō beget gignō

371
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
begin bhūjai bird petsnós
begird jṓsneumi birth gentlom
beguile dreughō birth sūtus
behind apóteri biscuit gōgā
being esn̥ ts bit akmā
belch reugō bite denkō
believe ōimi bite mordējō
believe kréddhēmi bitter bhidrós
bell kólkolos bitter choris
belly tarsós black ātros
belong ainō black dhoubhús
beloved kāros black kr̥ snos
belt (for safety) wérunos blackbird meslā
bend klengō blade akjēs
bend wərikjō blame onējō
bend wəroikos blaze sweidō
bend greugō bleach kormnos
bending nm̥tos bleat bebājō
beneficial síslāwos bleat blēkājō
benefit lawō blind andhos
benefit lawtlom blind kaikos
bent kambos blister kaldos
bent pandos blister wenseikā
berry morom block stopejō
beseech prekō blood esr̥
beset adghō blood krēws
besides perom bloom bhlosējō
besiege sedējō ambhí blow bhesmi
bestow ankmi blow bhlāmi
betrothed sponstós blow (ı̄́)wēmi
better bhodjṓ s blow up (pím)prēmi
better weljṓ s blue ghlastos
between énteri blue m̥dhros
beware kowejō blunt bhukús
biceps kiskā blunt dm̥pus
big crotsos boar apros
big məgjos boar twr̥ kos
big məgnos board ploutos
big eater corós boast bhledō
bile cheldi boast ghelbō
bilge out semjō boat plowós
billow sredhō bodkin ēlā
bind nedskō body kr̥ pos
bind bhendhō boil bherwō
bind kekājō boil seutō
bind ligājō bold dhr̥ sus
bind reigō boldness dhr̥ stis
bind síneumi bolt tormos
biped dwipods bone ostis
birch bherāgs border krēqā
bird awis bore bhorājō

372
 Appendix II: Late Indo-European Lexicon
born gnātós brood aglā
bosom sinus brook apnis
both ambhou brook reiwos
bought qrītóm broom aksteinos
boundary eghr̥ broom swoplom
boundary margōn broth jeus
bovine cowijós brother bhrātēr
bow arqos brother-in-law daiwēr
bowels gudom brotherly bhrā́ trijos
bowl tekstā brother's son bhrātreinos
box kəpsā brown bhrūnós
boy kelots bucket wedrom
boy maqos bud gnoubhos
boy póweros bug keimēx
bracelet welīks build demō
brain kerəsrom building demos
bramble dristos building place dm̥pedom
bran tolkos bull porsis
branch kankus bull tauros
branch osdos bulrush bhrughnos
branches cespis bulrush joinkos
brass ajos bumblebee krāsrōn
brassy ájesnos bundle bhaskis
brave tregsnos bundle dhrighsós
breach bhernā burden bhermn̥
bread bharsjom burglar tājús
break bhrn̥ gō burn aidhō
break bhrúsnāmi burn smelō
break rumpō burn dhechō
break off rewō burn eusō
break through wēdhājō burn kremājō
break up lemō burnt ustós
breast bhrusos burst spr̥ gō
breath anəmos burst in skekō
breath ātmós bury dhelbhō
breath spoisnā bury ghrebhō
breathe ātō bury sepēlijō
breathe pneusō bush bhrutēks
breeze áweljā bush dousmos
brew bhrewō bush qr̥ snos
briar ksentis but mō
bridge bhrēwā butter arwā
bright bhānús butter ghertom
bright leukós butterfly pāpeljos
brilliant argrós buttock klounis
bring disgrace buttocks pougā́
íneumi
upon buy qrínāmi
bring out dhraghō buy selō
broad plātús buzz susājō
brooch bharkos cabbage kaulis
brooch dhéicodhlā cable snēwər

373
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
cable winis cerebellum mosgom
cackle grakijō certain enis
cackle kaklājō certainly dā
calculate deljō certainly ghi
calf loigos certainly ka
calf wetlos certainly smā
call ghawō certainly toi
call for tolājō chaff akos
calm sēknis chain katēsna
caluum caput gholwā́ chain seinus
came ludhóm chair sedlā
camel wl̥bhontis chalk krētā
camp kastra chamber kēlā
can moghō chance wikis
cancer ghn̥ dhus change mejō
cannabis worgjom character mōs
canopy skostrom charge merkēds
cantus bhr̥ ghtom charioteer ərots
captive kəptos chatter blatsājō
car woghnos cheap wésolis
carbon kr̥ dhōn cheat meugō
caress ghneumi cheer owājō
carrot mr̥ kā cheese kwatsos
carry portājō cheese tūrjós
carry weghō cherry tree kornos
cart kr̥ sus chest pegtos
carve skalpō chest r̥ klā
carve skreidō chew gjewō
carve smeidhō chew mn̥ tō
castle kasterlom child pūpos
castrate skerdō child putlom
cat kattā chin mn̥ tom
catch kəpjō chin smekslā
cattle ármn̥ tom chirp bhrigijō
cattle peku chirp titijō
cauldron qorjom choice wolos
cause winsō choke bhleusō
cause to sleep swōpijō choose wolējō
cause to slope klínāmi choose opjō
caution wadhis circle kirkos
cave antrom circuit ámbhinom
cave speqos circulate qelō
cavern kowr̥ citizen keiwis
cavity kusjom city polis
cedar bhrosdhos civil kéiwijos
ceiling tegtom clack glokijō
celebration eplom clang klagjō
cellar gupā classical ántitjos
centre stornjā clean mūdnós
cereal dhōnā clean powejō
cereal jéwornjom clean pr̥ qjō

374
 Appendix II: Late Indo-European Lexicon
clean pūtós commit mn̥ dōmi
clean pewō common kómmoinis
clear aiskrós communicate mesgō
clear bhlaidos community kommoinitā́ ts
clear skīrós compasses kirknos
cleave wágneumi compensate qinō
cleave bhindō compete sperdhō
close klawdō complain qésai
close wəreumi complete kómplēnos
close wr̥ ijō complexed (to be) wn̥ ghējō
close to pəra compose qejō
closed klawstós comprehend tn̥ ējō
cloth westis concession lētis
cloth westrom concubine pareikā
clotted tm̥ktos condense stejō
cloud nebhos condition dhēmn̥
clown skoirsās conducted elóm
club baktlom conflagration dáwetus
club lorgos connect serō
club seikā conscience kómwoistis
club wísogā consider qeisō
clumsy cr̥ dos consideration qeistis
coal oncōl consort komjugs
coast moljā conspiracy jālos
coat pl̥tom conspirator jōrós
cockroach blaktā conspire jáneumi
cold kiklós construction demtis
cold ougros contain r̥ kējō
cold srīgos contend bhogājō
collapsed rwtós contend wikjō
collar monīli content ghrobhos
collect karpō continuity tēn
collect legō contrive smudhnō
collection kómāglom convex weksós
collection qejtis convey ı̄́nekmi
colony ápowoiks convey porejō
colorant keimos convocation klāstis
colour kiwos cook peqō
colour wornos cook peqtṓ r
coloured pr̥ qos cook poqós
colt kábn̥ los cooked peqtós
colt kánkestos cooking peqtis
comb kesō coot bhelēks
comb pekō copy áimneumi
comb pektēn core pūrós
comb pektō corn niktis
combat chn̥ tjā cornice ghrendhā
come cemjō cost of a feast dapnom
come back ghighējō couch stālos
come out pārējō cough qostā
commission upóqrijom cough tustijō

375
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
coughing tustis crush mr̥ tājō
courage nantis crush pinsō
course drewā cry dhrensājō
course kr̥ stus cry wāghijō
court alkis cry wr̥ kājō
court kómwoirjom cry kreugō
courtyard dhworom cry krigā
cousin jentēr cry reudō
cover kelos crying roudos
cover skemō cuckoo kukūlós
cover skeumō cuckoo kukulājō
cover skeutō cudge dolājō
cover tegō cuirass bhrusnjā
covering skūtos cup kalēiks
cow cows cup koupā
cow ēghī curb bhegō
cow lāpos curd cheese grutis
cow wakkā curdled milk tm̥klos
crab karkros curly kripsos
crack reimā curtail sneitō
crackle krépāmi curve witjom
cradle gretlom curve keubō
crane crús curve qelpō
crawl rēpō curved km̥ros
crawl serpō curved kr̥ wos
crazy dhwolnos cushion qolkā
create genesājō custom swēdhus
create krēmi cut tomos
creātor amsus cut kaidō
creature teknom cut kretō
creep snəghjō cut sékāmi
crest kripstā cut tmāmi
crib bhondhsā cut off snadhō
crime kreimn̥ cut off spl̥tājō
crime lōbā cut off sr̥ pjō
criminal worghós cut open bhr̥ ijō
crimpy hair gouros cut out drepō
crook bhogjos cut out treukō
crop sasjóm dace menis
cross kreuks dad appās
cross terō dad attās
crossbeam ghlaghos dad tātā
crow kornīks dam roinos
crowd plēdhwis damage klādis
crowd slougos damage lēumi
crown grendjom damage pēmn̥
crumb groumos damage wolsom
crumb smeikā dare dhr̥ sō
crumble dhrubhjō dark dherghos
crumble bhrijājō dark dhóncelos
crush melujō dark dhoncos

376
 Appendix II: Late Indo-European Lexicon
dark dhūskos densifiy stoipejō
dark keiros depart oighai
dark ml̥nos departure proitis
dark morcós deposit loghos
dark skeuros depressed neiwós
darkness recos desert jēlom
darkness temesras desert tuskjós
dart golbhnos deserve mərējō
daughter dhugtēr designate mātejō
daughter-in-law snusós desire aisskā
dawn ausōsā desire gherijai
dawn áussketi desire awējō
day dhochos desire chelō
day dinos desire smegō
day djēws desire wekmi
day latom desire wenō
dead mr̥ tos desire wn̥ skā
dead mr̥ wos desire wn̥ skō
deaf bodhrós desire eagerly jn̥ tō
deaf dhoubhos destitute awtjos
dear leubhos destroy arejō
dear prijós destroy dheukō
death chentis destroy nokejō
death dheunos destroy olējō
death mr̥ tis destruction dhchitis
death neks detergent mūdlom
debt dhl̥eghlā determine rékneumi
deceive chl̥nō development augos
deceive dhwerō devotion krōbhtus
deceive melsō devour sleugō
decide skidjō devour cerbhō
declare lenghmi devour crājō
decline sterbhō devour (to) swelājō
decree dhedhmós dew dolghos
deep dhubús diarrhea dhorjā
deer kerwos dick bhn̥ ghus
defame kl̥wijō die mərijai
defecate ghedō died walóm
defecate kakkājō difference kritis
defect smeros different íteros
defective mn̥ kos different kritós
defence wertrom dig bhodhjō
defend mághneumi dig kánāmi
deflect skl̥neumi dig out teukō
deity deiwotāts dim bhlendhos
delay morā dimension mētis
delight wenjā diminished dhebhús
demand kupjō dinner kersnā
demon dhwosos dip wəronkis
den bhōljóm direct dhn̥ ghus
dense tegús direct regō

377
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
direction wertmn̥ drag selkō
dirt kóqros drag deukō
dirt lutom drag traghō
dirt qoinom drag wersō
dirty coudhros drag away tenghō
dirty salús drapery drappos
dirty keqō draw pípāmi
dis- rēd/re draw tight stringō
disabled mr̥ kos dream ónerjos
discern skijō dream swepr̥
disgrace ghálerom dream swopnjom
disguise mengō dream swopnjājō
dish pēlwis dregs suljā
disk orbhis dress westijō
dismantle dhruslijō dress wosejō
dispersed rārós drink echmi
dispossession spoljom drink ēchr̥
disrupt dolejō drink pōtis
distaff qolus drink pibō
distance apóstətis drinker pōtṓ r
distribute nemō drinking pōnom
dive cadhō drip seilō
diverse wikwos drive enkō prō
divide kl̥jō drizzle aghlóws
divide r̥ nāmi drone bhoiqos
divide weidhō droop lāgō
divide up daimoi drop bn̥ dus
do dhídhēmi-dhəkjō drop dhrubhtis
do harm ghudjō drop leibs
do harm kepō drop spakos
do military service dhreughō drum bámbalos
do not? nom nē drunken ēchr̥ jos
docile gleghos drunken tēmos
doctor médodiks dry kserós
dog kolignos dry sisqos
dog kwōn dry susdos
domain dm̥seghr̥ dry susjō
dome krūtis dry tr̥ stos
door dhworis dry tr̥ sus
door wēr dry torsejō
door-bar r̥ kēslom dry (to) ādmi
double dwoplós dry skin sterbhnjom
doubt okējō duck anəts
dough reughmn̥ dust pelwos
dough taismos duty (religious) dhēs
dove dhombhos dwell trebhō
dove kólumbhos dwelling bhūtā́
down dhūmā dwelling westus
down nī eagle éroros
dowry dōtis eagle owl bughōn
dowry wedhnom ear ousis

378
 Appendix II: Late Indo-European Lexicon
early ájeri end dhicsnis
early ghrēw end termēn
earth dheghom endeavour rōdhjō
earth pl̥táwijā endure tlāmi
earth tersā enemy nemots
eastern áusteros enhance bheljō
easy reidhos enjoy oneself terpō
eat áknāmi enjoyment terptis
eat edmi enliven wegō
eat weskai enough (to be) dheughō
edge ōrā entrails sorwā
edge bhrenō entrails sternom
eel ellus entrance jā́ nuwā
effort mōlos envelope wélwtrom
egg ṓw(ij)om environment bhewtlom
eight oktōu envy r̥ sjā
eight hundred octōkm̥tṓ s equal somós
eight hundredth octōkm̥témtəmos equipment kómopjom
eighteen óktōdekm̥ equipped with went
eighteenth óktōdekəmos erect ghorsejō
eighth oktowós ermine kormōn
eightieth oktṓdkm̥təṃos escape skeubhō
eighty oktṓdkm̥ta establish tkeimi
eject jəkjō estimate qíqeimi
elastic tm̥pus eternal aiwós
elbow ōlnā eternal jucis
elder edhlos eternity áiwotāts
element skōlos even aiqos
eleven sémdekm̥ even eti
eleventh sémdekəmos even gladhros
elm olmos even étiqe
elm woighos evening wespros
embank klāmi evident gnōros
embroidery snētjā evil skelos
embryo geltis example deikmn̥
embryon crebhos excavator kernos
employee dhəmos excellent bhodrós
empty wāstos excellent wēsus
empty wōnós excepted ektós
empty ausijō exchange mítnāmi
enact sankijō exchange moitos
encircle gherdhō exchange mojnos
enclose twerō exchange moitājō
enclosure ghordhos excite sprewō
enclosure kaghos exclusive káiwelos
enclosure odhrom excrement ghedmr̥ -
enclosure wəregis exhaustion dhətis
enclosure wr̥ tom expect welpō
encourage ghorejai expel (jí)jēmi
end antjom experience perijō
end bendā expert suwids

379
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
explain títermi fat piwōn
explode bólboljō fatality moros
expression bhātis father pətēr
expression weqtlom father-in-law swékuros
extend spēmi fatherland pətrjā
extend tendō fatherly pətrjos
extend tenjō fault agos
extend tensō fault loktos
extend (to) tonejō fault mendom
extended próstōrnos fault woinā́
extension str̥ nos favour wēr
external éksteros favourable bhōwijós
extinguish césneumi fear pəwējō
extraordinary n̥ swodhros fear pr̥ gjō
exuberant jn̥ dros fear āghar
eye oqos fear bhíbheimi
eyebrow bhrūs fear dweimi
face enīqā fearful dwoiros
fact dhētis feast westos
faint təmjai feast wl̥dā́
fair weather qoitrós, koitrós feather peróm
fall mūjō feather petsnā
fall polnō feather plousmā
fall kadō feather pornós
fall asleep dr̥ mijō feeble térunos
fall down pedjō feed pāskō
fall down piptō feel awisdhijō
fall into ghrewō feel ashamed aichesājō
fallow polkā feel burnt kn̥ kējō
false məljos female dhḗ monā
family gentis fence saipis
famine nōunā ferment jesō
famous klūtós fern pratis
fan bhlādhrom ferret wéiwersā
fan prējō fetch oitmi
fancy ləskējō fever tepnos
far dew field arwom
far porsōd field maghos
far (from) qeli fierce saiwos
farewell r̥ tís fierceness tonslis
farm woikslā fifteen pénqedekm̥
farmer agróqolās fifteenth pénqedekəmos
far-reaching sētús fifth penqtos
fart pesdō fiftieth penqédkm̥təmos
farther peros fifty penqédkm̥ta
fashion teksō fig bheikos
fasten pakō fight katus
fastening apmn̥ fight streudō
fasting donkrós file sleimā
fat lajos fill píperkmi
fat pīmós fill (pím)plēmi

380
 Appendix II: Late Indo-European Lexicon
fill pl̥nāmi flourishing ghlustis
filling plēmn̥ flow ersō
filling plētis flow plewō
filth mergis flow sísermi
finch spingjā flow sormos
find (wí)wermi flow bhlewō
find by chance nn̥ kskai flow mejājō
find out windō flow srewō
finger cistis flow weisō
finger dékm̥tulos flow down stelghō
finger gnetō flower bhlōs
fingernail onchis flower bhlōtis
finish cerjō fluoresce bhelō
fire ecnis flush away rínāmi
fire pāwr̥ flutter spn̥ dō
firm omos fly muskā
first prāmos fly petō
first prāwos fly cəlājō
first prīsmos foal kurnos
first (of two) próteros foam spoimā
fish piskis foenum koinos
fist penqstis fog kalgōn
fist pougnos fog nebhlā
five penqe foggy, to be wapējō
five hundred penqekm̥tṓ s fold cijā
five hundredth penqekm̥témtəmos fold bheugō
fix pastos fold plékāmi
fixed pəgtós follow seqai
flake bhlokos food pasknis
flame bhləgsmā food pitús
flame bhokos food westā
flask óbrusjā foot pods
flat lergos footprint lorgā
flat plākos footprint pedom
flat plānos forbid wétāmi
flat-footed plautos force stolgos
flatness pl̥tnos force tewos
flatten stelghmi force twenghō
flax leinom force in treudō
flea puslēks ford pr̥ tus
fleabane dhwestus forearm lakertos
flee bhugjō forehead bhrówn̥ tis
fleece gnebhis foreigner ghostis
flexible lugnós foremost prījṓ s
flight bhougā́ forest nemos
flimmer merkō fork ghabhlom
flimmer míkāmi fork mergā
flood pleudō form magō
floor plārom form pr̥ ptus
flour melwom formerly ōlim
flour mlātóm fortieth qétwr̥ dkm̥təmos

381
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
fortification karkar fundament upósēdjom
fortify moinijai fungus swombhós
forty qétwr̥ dkm̥ta furniture endósēdjom
forwards prō(d) furrow pr̥ kā́
foundation dhəmelós furrow qelsō
fountain awā furrow solkos
fountain awn̥ further ólteros
fountain dhontis furthest óltm̥os
four qetwores, qétesres gall bistlis
four days qətwr̥ djówijom gape ghjājō
four each qətrusnōs garden ghortos
four hundred qetwr̥ km̥tṓ s garlic ā́ lujos
four hundreth qetwr̥ km̥témtm̥os garlic kesnus
four times qəturs garment togā́
four years qətwr̥ atnjom garment wospos
fourteen qétwordekm̥ gather gr̥ neumi
fourteenth qétwordekəmos gather katsājō
fourth qətwr̥ tos gaul galnos
fox wolpis gaze qekō
foxglove spjonos gender genjos
fragment bhroustom gentle klisrós
fragrant swekos germ genmn̥
framework wītjā́ germinate gembhō
fraud dolos get angry kr̥ dijai
fray sremsō get cumulated derghō
free léudheros get dressed owō
free nosejō get drunk pojejō
freeze prunsō get dry tersai
frequent menghos get encrusted kreupō
friend ámeikā get in a space telpō
friend amēiks get skilled dídn̥ skō
fringe antjās get tired kmāmi
from apo gift dōnom
from ekstrōd gird kingō
from there imde girl maqā
from there totrōd give (dí)dōmi
from this side kina give birth pərijō
from upwards dē give joy sōlājai
from which jomde give one's opinion tongejō
frost pruswā́ glade loukos
frozen snow kernós glance augā́
fruit ágrēnom glare swelō
fruit bhreugs glass pōtlom
fry bhagjō glide sleidhō
fry bhreigō glimmer bherkō
frypan landhom glimmer ghlōmi
fuck jebhō globe globhos
fuel dawtis gloomy mauros
fugacious tokwós glory klewos
full plēnós glove ghesris
full plētós glow kandō

382
 Appendix II: Late Indo-European Lexicon
glowing ash geulom greater plējṓ s
glue gloitn̥ greatest plēistos
gnat kūleks greatness məgistā́
gnaw gnāmi green ghelwos
gnaw ghrendō grey kasnos
gnaw away trowō grey pálowos
gnaw off gnabhjō grey pl̥wós
go leitō grey rāwos
go eimi grind ghrewō
go r̥ skai grind melō
go aside greubhō groan onkājō
go away cícāmi groin ili
go back to a good groin n̥ cḗn
ninsai
place/ state groom pusbhis
go down keidō ground bhudhnos
goat bokkos ground swólejā
goat dighā ground telsus
goat ghabhros group gromos
goat kaprā group kerdhos
goat kapros group qelos
goatish ghaidīnós grow krēskō
god deiwos grow r̥ dhjō
goddess deiwā grow fat peidō
godly déiwijos grow thin kerkō
gold ausom growl ghelijō
gold ghl̥tom grown augtós
golden ghl̥tnós grown grn̥ dhís
good bhilis grumble ghremō
good dwenos grumble wr̥ n̥gai
good ēsús grunt bhremō
good mānos grunt grundijō
good probhwos guardian sr̥ wos
goos ghansōr guerrilla bhogā́
gorgeous kaljós guest ghóstipots
grace ghəris guile astus
grain grānóm gull medgós
grand-daughter neptis gullet cəlā
grandfather awos gulp slr̥ gjō
grandfather dhēdhjos gum gengā
grandmother anus gush skatējō
grandmother áwijā gush up bhrendhō
grandson nepēts hail grōdis
granny annā hair ghaitā
grant lēmi hair kaisrom
grass ghrāsmn̥ hair kerom
grass ghrāsom hair lowā
grātus súghoris hair pilos
grave bhodsā hair rewmn̥
gravel geisā hair welnos
greasy liprós hair wondhos
great mgānts hair (strong) saitā

383
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
hairdresser tonstṓr heart kr̥ di / kr̥ djom
half sēmi- hearth aidhis
hall werstidhlom hearth chornos
ham persnā heat āmi
hammer matlā heat cheros
hammer moltlom heat olejō
hammer ordhos heath kaitom
hand ghesr̥ heave erō
hand ghestos heaviness crutā
hand mn̥ us heavy cr(āw)ús
hand wəronkā́ heavy crətos
handle ansā heavy tn̥ ghus
handle ghetlā hedgehog eghjos
handle skāpos hedgehog ghēr
hang lembō heed pāsmi
hang pendō heel kalkis
happen gígisai heel persā
hard kartús he-goat bhugos
hardened kəletos hello alā!
harm skodhos helmet kelmos
harn wəreinā helmet korudhs
harrow óketā help jewō
harsh drismós hen kerkos
harvest əsnātis henbane bhélunā
haste spoudā́ herb lubhjā
hasten bhūsjō herd gregs
hasten skegō herdsman cówqolos
hatchet tōkslos herdsman kerdhjos
hate odjō (ōda) here kei
hatred ōdjom heron árdejā
have eikō hesitate kenkai
have fever cerō hide kēlājō
have taste səpijō hide keudhō
have wrinkle gr̥ bējō hiding place kūlā
haven kopnos high altós
hawk astris high bhr̥ ghos
hawk ōkúpteros high orús
hazel kósolos high úperos
hazelnut árusā high úpselos
head ghebhlā hill kolnis
head kaput hill montis
head kersr̥ himself se
head of cereal speikā hinge kr̥ dḗn
health kóilutāts hint apóteros
healthy jekos hip koksā
healthy koilús hip londhwos
heap kūmós hip bone koksednīks
heap struwis his séwijos
hear gheusō hiss streidō
hear kl̥neumi hit bhenjom
hearing kleumn̥ hit kawdō

384
 Appendix II: Late Indo-European Lexicon
hit kawō hum kemjō
hit bhətjō human being dhghomōn
hit bhlagō humble wailos
hit bhleicō humiliate neidō
hit bhutjō hump gibbā
hit slakō hundred km̥tom
hit steupō hundredth km̥témtəmos
hold potējō hunger dhəmis
hold seghō hunger ghrēdhus
hold (to) jemō hunt woitā
hole lugjā hunt (wí)weimi
hollow dholos hurry sperghō
hollow dhónejā hurry speudō
hollow ghéwejā hut kleitis
hollow kowos hut koutā
hollow out skerbhō I egō
holy kwentos ice eisom
holy noibhos ice gelu
holy sakrós ice gləgjēs
home god lāōs ice jegis
honey melit icicle krustā
honour aisdai icicle stejsjā
honour ghōdhos ignorant n̥ widis
honour məgtājō ill aigros
hoof kopos ill-treat mr̥ kjō
hook ankos illuminate bháneumi
hook kenkos illuminate loukejō
hook khamos immediate udhús
hook onkos immediately kitōd
hoopoe ópopā immortal n̥ mrtijos
hope spēs impair dhebhō
horn kr̥ nu impel peldō
hornbeam gr̥ beinos important swērús
hornless kemos impregnate tengō
horse ekwos impression wl̥tus
horse kabōn in en
horse markos in excess n̥ dhi
hostage gheislos in the middle meti
hot kl̥tos in the morning prōi
house domos incise ghelō
house weiks incision bhr̥ mā
housemaster esos incite r̥ ghējō
hovel cr̥ cestjom incite trenkō
how jota incited orghós
how qālis inclined nīqos
how qota include glembhō
how great qā́ wn̥ tos incompetent duswids
how many qot(j)os increase augmn̥
howbeit aw increase augō
howl ululājō increscō augsō
hub qolos indeed gar

385
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
indeed qidpe joyful ghoilos
indication deiktis joyful rōdos
induce (to) woghejō judge jewesdiks
infere densō juice sapos
inferior nı̄́teros juice soukos
inflammation dheghwis jump rebhājō
inflate bhleidō jump dhr̥ numoi
inflate pusjō jump leigō
inform steumi jump out prewō
inheritance orbhjom juniper lentos
insect empis juniper toksos
inside endo just jéwestos
inside entós keel kareinā
inside ētr̥ keep bherghō
insipid merwos keep kadhō
inspect (to) skewō key klāws
install dhídhneumi kidney ārōn
insult pējō kidney neghrōn
intellect menmn̥ kill nékāmi
intelligence sn̥ stus kin genos
intelligent glēkis kindle andhō
intend seikō kindness prósēdjom
intend mn̥ sjai king regs
interest dhēnos kingdom regnom
interior ennós kingly regjos
internal énternos kiss kusis
internal énteros kiss sówijā
interval énterom kiss bhusājō
intestine énteros knead bheurō
intestine ghoros knead debhō
intestine routos knee genu
invert (to) wortejō knee teupō
investigate windō peri knock bheldō
invisible eksoqs knot nōdos
invite l̥tejō knot osdcos
invoke kiklēskō know (gí)gnōskō (gnōwa)
iron īsarnom know woida
irritate prousijō knower gnōtṓ r
island enslā knowing woidwṓ s
ivy khéderos knowledge gnōtis
jar goulos known gnōtós
jaws gombhos lack egējō
jaws gopos lack kəsējō
jet krosnos lack meitō
join jungō lack menkō
joint artus ladder skandslā
joint koubos ladle trowā
joke ghloumos lake ágherom
joke ghleumi lake lakus
journey itājō lamb acnos
joy gaudhjom lamb wərēn

386
 Appendix II: Late Indo-European Lexicon
lame klaudos lend gherō
lamp lapsā lend loiqnom
land agros length dl̥nghotā
land erwā leprosy trudskā
land kampos less mínusi
land londhom lessen sewājō
land oudn̥ let out munkō
land estate kāpos leuer weghtis
landlady dómūnā level surface grejos
landlord dómūnos lick linghō
lap gremjom lie leghjai
lapis lazuli kúwanos lie leghō
lapwing gówijā lie keimoi
large fish sqalos lie kúbāmi
last póstm̥os lie leughō
last year péruti lie down jəkējō
late lodi lie open pətējō
later sḗtjosi life cītā
laugh gélāmi life cīwos
laugh khákhatnos lifetime saitlom
laugh wr̥ isdējō ligament tenos
law jewos light bhāos
law legs light dr̥ ktā
lax loksos light leghús
lay leghos light leuks
lay strāmn̥ light leuksmn̥
lay down loghejō light ln̥ ghros
lazy leghskós light up lukskējō
lead nijóm lighting bhānom
lead plúwaidhom like iwe
lead wedhō like lubhējō
leader deuks likewise itim
leader wəlos lily leiljom
leaf bholjom limb apsos
leaf leups limb karōn
lean gneichō lime-tree leipā
leap rebhā lime-tree pteljā
leap kekō limit bhrēunā
learn didkskō limp skn̥ gjō
leather korjom line streibā
leather letrom line strigjā
leather bag wədris link nedō
leave linqō link wédhneumi
leek pr̥ som lion wəlewā
left laiwós lip ghelnom
left soujós lip ləbjom
left-handed skaiwós lip mēknos
leg kanmā liquid latēks
leg krous liquid serom
legal suit stlītis liquid wəleiqos
legbent watjos liquid (to be) wl̥iqējō

387
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
list rēimn̥ make qr̥ eumi
listen kleumi make adequate plākājō
listening kleutis make afraid trosejō
little paukos make bitter streubhō
live cejwō make black mercō
lively cīwāks make equal (to) somejō
liver jeqr̥ make fly potejō
load gomos make grow augejō
load onos make grow wogsejō
lobster km̥ertos make hot dhochejō
lock ghrendhos make money pelō
lock of hair pulgā make noise bhelō
lofty mlōdhrós make noise strepō
long dl̥nghos make slim mākājō
long for gheidhō make up dr̥ kjō
long hair káisr̥ jēs male r̥ sēn
longing chodhjā male wersis
long-lasting sēros mallow-plant ml̥wā
look spekjō man mánnusos
look like prepō man wīrós
loom weimn̥ mane kripsnis
lot koupnā manner koitús
lot teusmn̥ mantle sagom
lotus kémeros maple ákeris
loud klārós maple kleinos
loud torós march cm̥tis
louse lousēn march oimos
love kāmi mare ekwā
love stergō mark ghronos
love wenos mark gnṓ menjom
love (to) amājō marrow smerwā
love potion wenēsnom marry sneubhō
lovely koimos marsh máreskos
lower nérteros mass kōmos
luck toughā́ mass mōlis
lung lənchijóm mass sloidhos
lung pleumōn massacre agrā
lush cīrós mast masdos
lustful ləsnis master potis
luxury ghloidos matching dwīskos
lynx louksos mate bhendhros
magic qədnos mate dāmos
magic soitos mattock sligōn
magic force qedos maxilla genus
magician kowis me me
magnanimous məgnánəmos mead medhu
magnificent m̥gadhós meager petlos
magpie peikos mean doiknejō
maid ándhesā means moghtrom
maim skutājō measure mestis
maintain dl̥ghējō measure metrom

388
 Appendix II: Late Indo-European Lexicon
measure modos more mājis
measure mēmi more plēis
measure mētijai more than that immō
measured mestós morning āmros - āmrei
meat mēmsóm morning ausrom
meet katsājai morning wēsros
meet mimdō mortar mr̥ tāsjom
meet with point moss muskos
aikō
(to) mother ammā
meeting komnom mother mātḗr
melodious bhendos mother-in-law swekrús
melt tādhēskō motley pr̥ knos
melt tínāmi mould gheutis
melt títāmi mound tumlós
memory smemorjā mount skandō
mention mn̥ tos mountain ceri
mention cotejō mountain oros
metal roudhós mountain pérkūnjom
midday médhidjōws mountain-path kl̥dis
middle medhjos mouse gleis
middle (in the) obhi mouse mūs
middling leswos mouth ōs
might moghtis mouthful bukkā
mild loisós move djejō
mild moilos move r̥ neumi
milk glaghti move meicō
milk molgējō move mowejō
mill moleinā move pelkō
millet keros move away spr̥ nō
millet meljom movement r̥ nutis
millstone crā́ wenus mow amsō
millstone molā much pelu
mind mn̥ tis mucus moukos
miracle smeirātlom mud korkos
miserable treughos mud loimos
missing sn̥ terí mud mūtrom
mist mighlā mud penom
mistletoe wiskom multitude lugtos
mistress potnjā multitude tūljom
mix mikskejō mum mammā
mix krāmi mundane cécālos
model dhinghō murder chenmi
modest nesros murmur dr̥ drājō
moisture aijus murmur mr̥ mrājō
molder pujō muscle kīkus
moment mēlom muscle meus / muskós
money alchos must mudstos
month mēnsis mutilate kersō
moo mūgijō mutilated klambós
moon louksnā mutter muttijō
more məgis mutual moitwos

389
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
myop neukos nipple spēnos
mystery kelgā nit sknidā
nail klawos no nē
nail onghlos noble atlos
nail pn̥ gō noble məglos
naked nócodos nobody neqis
name nōmn̥ nod newō
name práinōmn̥ noise swonos
name werjō noise tóntenos
name kəlejō noisy bholós
name nōmnājō none nōinos
narrow amghús nord skouros
narrowness ámghustis nose nāsis
nates nətis not ghawōd
native gnos not mē
nature bhewtis not at all nei
navel onbhlos nothing neqid
near nedjos nourish alō
near proqēd now nū
neck amchḗ n now num
neck knokos now numki
neck kolsos nut knouks
neck mongos oak aigā
neck monos oak perqos
necklace torqis oak tree grōbhos
need n̥ kējō oakum stoupā
needle akus oar rēsmos
neglect mersō oat awigsnā
neighbour nedus oath loughjom
nest nisdos oath oitos
net grebhos obedience kleustis
net nedsā obey kleusō
nettle nedis obliged moinis
network gersā obscurity temos
network krātis observe sr̥ wājō
never neqom observe tewai
new new(ij)os occipital moldhā
newness newotāts occupation koisā
nigh proqos odor odós
night noqterinós of here ke
night noqtis of horses ekwīnós
night bird streigs of rams/goats agīnós
nightmare morā of this side kíteros
nine newn̥ offer poti linkō
nine hundred newn̥ km̥tṓ s offshoot stelōn
nine hundredth newn̥ km̥témtəmos offspring gnās
nineteen néwn̥ dekm̥ oil solpos
nineteenth néwn̥ dekəmos oint oncō
ninetieth néwn̥ dkm̥təmos oint līnō
ninety néwn̥ dkm̥ta ointed līnós
ninth néwn̥ mos ointment ghreimn̥

390
 Appendix II: Late Indo-European Lexicon
ointment oncn̥ pain edunā
old gerlós pain kormos
old senēks paint pinkō
old wetwos palate stōmn̥
old (to become) gerō palisade edhr̥
omoplate skubtis palm pl̥mā
on epi panic mórmoros
on account of rōdhí parcel glēws
on top udsqe parent gentṓr
once semli parent gentrīks
one oinos part aitis
one semos part pr̥ tis
one-eyed kolnos part qestis
one-year creature wetsós particle bhrustóm
onion kaipā partridge kákabā
onion krémusom pass jāmi
open ōsmi pass from one
ghēmi
open wəreumi apo place to another
open land rewos passage teqom
opening kaghlā past pr̥ nos
opinate kn̥ sējō pasture pāstus
opinion dhōmós path sentos
oppress amghō patience kómtl̥tis
oppress ipjō patient tlātjos
or awti paunch pn̥ dēks
or loubhis pause rowā́
or we pay attention ghowejō
orange badjos pea kikēr
organize sepō peace paks
orient woidejō peaceful qijētós
origin ortus peak sēr
orphan orbhos pear-tree gherdos
otherwise awtim pebble ghrowā́
otherwise perti pee moighos
otter wədrā peel gleubhō
our n̥ serós peg kippos
out ud penetrate neghō
outdoors rew penis bhalnós
outermost ékstəmos penis lalu
outside ek(sí) penis mūtos
oven uqnós penis pesnis
over (s)úperi penis poutos
over uperi penthouse kéliknom
over there oltrōd penury loigós
overcome təreumi people teutā
owl káwonā people wolgos
own ghəbhējō pepper píperi
ox uksḗ n perch dhghusā
ox-stall cowstā́ s perfect kómsqr̥ tos
paddle pl̥dājō perform sáneumi
page pəstrom perhaps an

391
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
perimeter wərbhis pleasant moghjos
period áiwesos pleasantly ghornim
permissive ml̥dhos pleased prītós
permit (to) leidmi pleasure prītis
persecute jeghō plough arātrom
persecute wr̥ nāmi plough arājō
perseverance mōdos plough animal aghjā
perspective dr̥ ksmos plough handle seghdhlā
perspire spoisājō plough handle steiwā
phantom lemsos ploughshare wogsmis
pick lesō pluck gnebhō
pickaxe səkesnā plum sloiwom
piece pr̥ snā plump kratsos
pig porkos plunder mr̥ namói
pig sūs plunder soru
pig trogos pod gherghros
piglet sūkós pod skl̥iqā
pike ceru poet wātis
pile ákeswos point ardis
pile kolnom point glōghis
pillage wəleumi poison woisos
pillar stobhos pole pertā
pimple wəros pole spelgis
pin down gangō policeman worós
pin down karnājō polish sleimājō
pinetree bharwos pond stagnom
pinetree dhanus ponder medai
pink elwos poodle lāmā
pinnacle stertos pool staknom
pintle bendlā poor ormos
pious jāgjus poppy mā́ kōn
pipe srwtom porcine swīnós
pipe strudsmā porridge poltos
piss minghō portent sqeros
pit skrobhis portico antas
pitch peiks portico pr̥ gā
place stānom portion bhagos
place stlokos portion onkos
place sinō position stətus
place stānejō post ksūlom
placed on top épiromos post mētā
plait plektō post sparos
plait resgō posterior ópitjos
plane glabhō posterity troghos
planet rewis pot auqslā
planitiēs plātom pot kumbhā
plate stlāmn̥ potter wheel dhroghnom
platform stātlom pouch makēn
plea preks pour ghúgheumi
pleasant seljos pour ghundō
pleasant swādús power galnos

392
 Appendix II: Late Indo-European Lexicon
powerful kúwr̥ os promote kákneumi
praise loudis pronounce bhəskō
praise cerō property rentus
pray chedhjō property selwā
pray meldhō propice sinísteros
pray ōrājō propriety rēis
prayer moldhos prosper mājō
precarious dúsōpis protect alkejō
preceding preistos protect pālājō
precipitate krepō protest glaghā́
precisely arti protrusion sondhos
precision nomr̥ proud bhorsos
predator dhaunos proud meudos
prepare adejō prove probhwājō
presence weidos provide áineumi
present deqsjō provided with
ansātos
present práiloghos handle
press bhríkāmi provision penos
press dhenghō proximity enstar
press premō prune (to) kastrājō
press presō pubescent mərjos
press tightly kamō public servant ambhíagtos
prestige meidos pulse ercom
prevail cínāmi pumice poimēks
previous kintos punch pungō
previous préwijos puncture dheicō
price pretjom punish membhō
prick kentrom pure kəstos
prick wésnāmi pure pūrós
prickle aknā purpose meinom
prickle speiksnā pus puwos
prickle stigājō push agō
pride molpā́ push kelō
priest bhlaghmn̥ push away (to) steugō
priest sákrodhots pushed agtós
principal promos pustule pustlā
proclaim əgsājō put dhejō
proclaim neumi put stelō
procreation gentus put forth prṓddōmi
produce gnājō put in order tagjō
produce gonējō put off nocējō
produce of land dhēnom put on mn̥ tijai
productive dhēlēiks put to flight bhougājō
profession kerdos putrid pūlós
profit bhéwedā quadruped qətwr̥ pods
profitable lawrós qualified dn̥ sus
progeny teukmn̥ qualify tādējō
prominence pr̥ stis queen regeinā
promise spondejō question pr̥ kskā
promontory akrom quick peimis
promontory prostos quick twr̥ tos

393
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
quickly bhersi refrain from parkō
quiet sāmis region pagos
quietness sāmn̥ reject dikjō
radiance loukós rejoice torpejō
radiant loukētjos rejoice gāudhējō
raffle kleutō rejoice oneself tusjai
rag kentom relation ḗ pijos
rag pannos relation mosgos
rage rəbhjō relative pāsós
rain wr̥ stā relative sweljos
rain plówijā relax remō
raise tl̥nō release ledō
ram agós relief podjom
ram erjos religion perístānom
range (to) kerdhō remain mənējō
rank agmn̥ remain (water) stagō
rather uta remaining loiqós
raven korwos remember mímnāskō (memna)
raven wornos remnant atiloiqos
raw ōmós remoteness ekstar
ray rədjom renew newājō
ray ragjā renowned mōros
raze gneibhō rent doros
razor ksnowātlā rent keusō
reach əpjō repair sr̥ kijō
reach ikjō repellent aghlós
ready ōkinós replication aimom
realise pretō reprove kudājō
reality bhéwonom reputation kléumn̥ tom
really bhod request áisoskō
reap metō require bhedhō
reason rətis residence sedos
reason argujō residence selom
receive dekai resin cetus
receive tekō resin peitus
receive ghn̥ dō resonate tónāmi
recent kənjós resound boukājō
recitate spelō resound gewō
reckon rēmoi respect aisō
reckon puwējō respect wərējai
recline kumbō rest qijētis
recognize gnōsmi rest ermi
recommend swādejō rest qejēskō
red rudhrós rest tl̥ijō
red (-haired) reudhos restless n̥ qijētós
red ochre miljom restrain kēsmi
red-deer elēn restrict strengō
reddish rudhsós result temkō
redness reudhos retain dhermi
reduce míneumi retaliation qoinā́
reed arom retire spleighō

394
 Appendix II: Late Indo-European Lexicon
revenge apóqitis rotten kr̥ nos
rheum grammā rotten pūterós
rheum lippā rough bhorcos
rib kostā rough brenghos
ribbon tenā round wolwós
rich deiwots row wr̥ stos
riches ops row rējō
ride reidhō rowan tree sorbhos
right deksiwós rub pesmi
right déksiteros rub serdhō
right regtós rub melkō
right way jeunis rub terjō
righteous pūjós rubbed trītós
right-hand side deksis rubber gloidos
rigid sternós rubbish ceudhos
rigid (to be) stupējō rubbish swordis
ring anos rudder oisjā
ring krenghos rude rudlós
ring out dhrenkō rudis kersis
rise bhr̥ ghjai ruin réwesnā
rise nedhō ruin rikjō
rite admn̥ rule wl̥dhējō
rivalry neitom ruler (in
stolbos
river dānus topography)
river ford wadhom rūmen reusmn̥
road kelus ruminate reusmnājō
roam wəgājai rummage ruspājai
roar dhrēnos rumor bhāmā
roar rugijō rumor (to
reumi
roaring ghromos produce)
rob sterō rump ghodos
rock kárrēkā run bhecō
rock ondos run dhewō
rock pelsā run dremō (dídrāmi)
rock roupis run kr̥ sō
rock kr̥ djō run renō
rod cosdhos run retō
rod litwos run around dhreghō
rod mentā run away tekwō
rod slatā rust roudhstos
roebuck jorkos rye wərughis
roe-deer olkis ryegrass airā
roll wolmos ryegrass dr̥ wā
roof robhos sack coinos
room kētjā sacrifice sákrodhokjom
root wr̥ djā sad creughos
root wr̥ ādīks sad gorgós
rope resgtis sad treistis
rope sognos sadness gorgnóm
rot kr̥ jēs safe stiprós
rot kr̥ nāmi sailor nawāgós
saint kadros
395
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
salary misdhóm second éteros
sale wesnom second ónteros
saliva saleiwā secret rounā
salt sal secrete músnāmi
salt saldō secretion sāimn̥
sanctuary némētom sect wereinā
sand samdhos secure seghurós
sand/gravel pēnsús sedge olwā
sandal pedlom sedge sesqos
satiated sətos see dr̥ kō
satisfaction sātis see oqō
satisfy sánāmi see welō
saucer pəterā́ see widējō
say seqō seed sēmn̥
scabies skabhjēs seek sāgijō
scald-crow bhodhwos seem dokejō
scale bhrounóm seen dr̥ ktis
scammony akōkós seen wistós
scandal bhloskos seesaw sweigō
scant mn̥ wos seize ghr̥ bhjō
scanty sneitos seizing āmós
scar kekātrīks self sewe
scar krenktis sell pr̥ nāmi
scarce ligos send smeitō
scatter sperjō send sontejō
scatter skédnāmi send away īljō
scene polpos sense menos
scissors kastrom sentence bhānis
scold lājō separate seqos
scorch dáwneumi separate derō
scrape gneidō serpent natrīks
scrape off greumō servant ambhíqolos
scrape out reubō serve bhungai
scratch gr̥ bhō service upóstānom
scratch gredō set staurejō
scratch meukō set fire wərjō
scratch skabhō set out ərijai
scrath out meidō settle sōdejō
scream waplājō settlement leghskā
scythe dhēlgs settlement sedmn̥
scythe sēklā seven septm̥
sea mari seven hundred septm̥km̥tṓ s
sea tríjətos seven hundredth septm̥km̥témtəmos
sea heaviness srodhos seventeen septm̥dekm̥
seabream atis seventeenth septrm̥dekəmos
seal swelāks seventh séptəmos
seam sjewmn̥ seventieth séptm̥dkm̥təmos
seaside leitos seventy séptm̥dkṃta
season jōrom sew sjewō
seat sodjom sewer's awl sjūdhlā
second dwóteros sewn sjūtós

396
 Appendix II: Late Indo-European Lexicon
shackle winkijō shit sterkos
shade skojā́ shiver trepō
shadow skotos shiver tresō
shadow unksrā shoddy rupús
shake kreitsō shoe kr̥ pjos
shake krotjājō shoot selgō
shake qətjō shoot skeudō
shaker mn̥ kstrom shore ā́ peros
shall skelō short mr̥ ghús
shameful kaunós shoulder omsos
share erkō shoulder-blades pletjā
sharp akris shout genō
sharp gigrós show deikō
sharp kətos shrew sworēx
sharp pikrós shriek krokijō
sharpen (kí)kōmi shrine tegos
sharpened point ákūmn̥ shuttle kristājō
shatter bhresjō sibling sm̥ópətōr
shave ksnujō sickle lewis
shave rādō sickle sr̥ pā
shave tondejō side splighstós
sheath wageinā side stlātos
sheep owis sieve kreidhrom
sheep skin moisós sieve sējdhlom
shelduck ghandā sieve krinō
shelf skolpos sieve sējō
shell konkhā sign gnōtlom
shelter krowos silent tausos
shepherd pōimōn silent (to be) silējō
sherd skroupos silent (to be) təkējō
shield rebhō silently tausnim
shield skoitom silver árgn̥ tom
shift mejtis similar sm̥lis
shimmer bhl̥gējō simple meros
shin-bone skīwr̥ simple sm̥plos
shin-bone teibhjā simultaneously
oinowr̥ stós
shine erqō made
shine bhrēgō sincere n̥ dwojos
shine dhelō sing kanō
shine dídjāmi sing senchō
shine lukējō single óinokos
shine nitējō sink mergō
shine skejō sink senqō
shine (to) leukō sip lm̥bō
ship nāws sip sorbhējō
ship plówijom sir arjos
shirt kr̥ stus sir audhos
shit coucis sister swesōr
shit dherghs sister-in-law glōs
shit skerdā sister's son swesreinos
shit smerdā sit down sisdō

397
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
site loghjom smoke dhūjō
six seks / sweks smoke dhūmājō
six hundred sekskm̥tṓ s smoke dhūmós
six hundredth sekskm̥témtəmos smoke dhwēwis
sixteen séksdekm̥ smoke smoughos
sixteenth séksdekəmos smoke smeughō
sixth sekstos smooth rastós
sixtieth séksdkm̥təṃos smooth sleigō
sixty séksdkṃta smooth slējús
skeletton skroutos snail sleimāks
skillful dhabhros snake anghwis
skin kūtis snake kélodhros
skin pelnis snake sérpenos
skirt baitā snake snoghā
skull mreghmós snappy swerwos
sky kémelom snare merghā
slack mlīnós snatch rəpjō
slack slagós sneeze str̥ neumi
slanting loksós snore srenkō
slate lēsanks snore stertō
slaughterer truks snout srunghos
slave dōsos snow sneighs
sleep swopnos snow sníncheti
sleep sesmi so ita
sleep swepō so mān
sleeper swelom so nom
slender kr̥ klos so swāi
slender makrós so many tot(j)oi
slip slabai so much tā́ wn̥ tos
slip sleibō sob gheipō
slip sleubō soft ml̥dus
slip in smúghneumi soften ml̥duwijō
sloe dherghnos softened ml̥dsnos
slop mouros soil bhudhmn̥
slow ml̥sos soldier neros
slow tárudos solid dhobos
small alpos solid māterós
small gherús solidify greutō
small km̥bhis some edqos, -qā, -qod
small paulos someone neqos
small pillar skolmā someone edqis, edqid
small sheep owikā́ son sūnús
smaller meiwijṓ s song kanmn̥
smell bhrēgjō son-in-law gemros
smell odējō soon mogsū́
smell sísghrāmi soot dhūlis
smell good swekō soot sōdjā
smelling bhrēgrós sorrow croughnos
smile smejō soul etmn̥
smith ghwobhros sound chonos
smog sneudhs sound dhwonos

398
 Appendix II: Late Indo-European Lexicon
sound kln̥ gō spray ros
sound swénāmi spread strātós
soup supā spread str̥ nō
sour amrós spread out pn̥ tō
sour sauros spread out str̥ nō prō
sow trogjā spring lendhā
sow segō spring mānājō
sow sisō spring wesr̥
sowing segēts spring skatō
sowing sēlom spring skerō
space ghewos spring sl̥ijai
spade laghā sprout geimō
span potmos sprout wisējō
sparrow parsā spurn tembhō
sparrow sparwos square qəddrom
speak mleumi squeak pipjājō
speak bhāmoi squeeze wēskō
speak tloqai stab pinjos
speak wíweqmi stab tálejā
spear ghaisom stab weghmi
spear lostos stable stārós
spearshaft ghastā stain dherkō
speckled bhr̥ ktos stain smitlā
speckled mr̥ ktos stain smā́ neumi
speech əgtis stake stauros
speech bhāmn̥ staked staurós
speechless muttis stalk kolmos
spelt ados stalk tibhjā
spelt alēiks stall stādhlom
spend neudō stamp on stembhō
spend the night awō stand (sí)stāmi
spill seiqō standing post stətis
spill sujō star stēr
spin snēmi star steros
spit spjwtos star sweidos
spit spjewō stare stelpō
splash persō starling stornos
spleen spelghā start dherbhō
split dr̥ nós starvation ghosdos
split dr̥ tis stay wesō
split dr̥ tós steadfast woikós
split lúnāmi steady dhr̥ mos
split delō steal klepō
split skerjō steal tājō
split skindō steam bholos
split skl̥jō steam up dhemō
split spleidō steep kloiwos
spoil deusō steep r̥ dhwos
spokesman kn̥ stṓ r step cāmn̥
spoon leiglā step ghenghō
spot kālis step ghradjai

399
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
sterile stérolis strike wedhskō
stick ghaisom string strengom
stick spōnos string tentrom
stick steipēts strip off streigō
stick stupos stroll alājai
stick sworos strom srewtis
stick ghaisējō strong bélowents
stick glínāmi strong krepús
stick koljō strong melos
stick limpō strong nertos
sticky gloijós struck bhītós
still dom study ghlendhō
sting ákulos study stoudjom
stink smerdō stuff bhr̥ kjō
stir mendhō stumble stemō
stir up joudhejō stupid mlākós
stir up sewō stupid mōrós
stock kreumi stutter lepō
stone akmōn subjugate jugājō
stone ləpods subsequent pósteros
stone səksom succeed bheughō
stonework lāurā success kobom
stool skabhnom such tālis
stop stāwō suck seugō
stop stōwejō suck dheimi
stop strigājō suck mendō
stop up teurō sudden abhnós
stork kíkōnjā suffer qn̥ tjō
storm m̥bhros suffer pətjai
story kleutrom suitor prokós
straighten (to) storejō sulphur swelplos
strain kemō summer samos
strainer rēti summer heat chrensós
strap telmṓ n summit bhroigos
strap wəlōrom summit kakú ds
straw pálejā summit kolmn̥
stream bhlewmn̥ summit okris
stream bhoglā sun sā́ wel(jos)
stream srowmos sunlight swelā
street stoighos superior (s)úperos
strenght belom supplementary wíteros
strength weis support kleitrom
strengthen dherghō support leghtrom
stretched tn̥ tos support bhl̥kjō
strew strewō support steutō
strick dhōunis sure pəgrós
strike bhínāmi surface pelom
strike bhreukō surname kómnōmn̥
strike keldō sustenance pādhlom
strike pln̥ gō swallow glujō
strike tundō swallow qemō

400
 Appendix II: Late Indo-European Lexicon
swamp pl̥wods teat tettā
swan elōr technique teksnā
sway kēwējō tehth dekəmós
swear swərjō tell jekō
sweat swoidos tell wedō
sweat swoidājō tell off lā́ mn̥ tom
sweet dl̥kus temple temlom
swell bhreusō temple tenjom
swell pankō ten dekm̥
swell salom tendon kenklom
swell turgējō tendril olgjā
swelling bhuljā́ tension (engine) tórkmn̥ tom
swelling cotlós termite tr̥ mos
swelling keulom terrible ghouros
swelling panknos thanks moitmos
swelling paplā that ei
swelling pounā that elno elnā elnod
swift ōkús that eno enā enod
swim snāmi that one oiso, oisā, oisod
swindle swendhō that, the one that jos (je), jā, jod
swollen tūlós thaw tādhis
sword kladjos the other one álteros
sword n̥ sis then n̥ dha
syrup bhrwtom then tom
table speltā then tom-ke
table stolos there idhei
tablet klāros therefore ar
tablet loisā therefore tori
tail doklom thick dn̥ sus
tail dumbos thief bhōr
tail ersā thigh bhemr̥
tail ersábhaljom thigh morjods
tail pukos thigh touknā
take emō thigh-bone soqtis
take labhō thin bhlakkos
take care swerghō thin speimis
talk gálgaljō thin tn̥ us
talk garsijō thing weqtis
tame kékuros think mənjō
tame dómāmi think sn̥ tējō
taste ml̥sjō thinnen kakō
taste geustis third tritjos
taste gusnō thirst tr̥ stis
teach n̥ neumi thirteen tréjesdekm̥
team lāwós thirteenth tréjesdekəmos
tear dakru thirtieth trídkm̥təmos
tear ləkesājō thirty trídkm̥ta
tear rōdō ghoi-ke ghāi-ke ghod-
this
tear off weldō ke
tearing ləkós this is, id
teat dhēlós ko kā kod (eko ekā
this
ekod)
401
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
this se/sos sā/sī tod torch chōks
thorn sqijā torch dáwētā
thorn tr̥ nā torment cedhō
thousand sm̥gheslom torpid (to be) tr̥ pējō
thrash studējō tortoise ghelus
threaten tercō torture cēlejō
threatening torcós torture rigjō
three trejes trija tisres totality solwotāts
three hundred trikm̥tṓ s touch palpājō
three hundredth trikm̥témtəmos touch tn̥ gō
three in a go trisnōs tough raukos
three times trīs towards anta
threefold triplós towards poti
thriving spəros towards there totrēd
throat bhrugs towards this side kitrōd
throat gutr̥ towel tergslom
through trāntis tower tursis
throw supājō tower mənijai
throw away celō town dounom
thrush tr̥ sdos track leisā
thumb polnēks track ogmos
thunder tontrom track werstis
thunder torsmn̥ track pentō
thunderbolt meldhjā trail tekwos
thurify kodējō traitor prodətṓr
thus s(w)eike trample trepō
tick deghā transport woghos
tick rekā transporter weghtṓ r
tie dídēmi trap ləkjō
tile tēglā trap ségneumi
time daitis trap segnom
time qr̥ tus travel ambhírēmos
time tempos travel kelujō
time wetos tread sporējō
time before dawn ánksitjom tread spr̥ āmi
tip bhr̥ stís treasure kusdhos
tip ghərtā treat drewō
tire ln̥ cō tree drewom
tired cəlēnós tremble tremō
to ana trestle stoghos
to dō triplication trípl̥tis
to another place áljote troop twr̥ mā
today edjḗ w trouble kādos
together sm̥ trouble oghlejō
tomb sépeltrom trough aldhōn
tomorrow krāsi trousers skousā
tongue dn̥ ghwā trout perknā
tongue-tied balbos true wēros
tool kaplos trunk stērps
tooth dentis trunk stm̥nos
top kōnos trust bheidhō

402
 Appendix II: Late Indo-European Lexicon
try kōnājai underly n̥ dherós
try to get r̥ numái understand peumi
tube aulos unexpected nekopīnós
tube rebhrus unfair n̥ joustos
tuff of hair wl̥tis union kómjougos
tunic ruktus unjustice n̥ jousjom
tunnel bolkos unknown n̥ gnōtós
turban wosis unmade n̥ dhētós
turfgrass smelgā unmuddy n̥ sloimis
turkey téturos until teni
turmoil túmolos untouched kairós
turn rotājō uppest (s)upmos
turn wergō upright ernos
turn derbhō use bhreugtis
turn qerpō use bhrūgjai
turn swerbhō usual nitjos
turn torqejō uter úderos
turn trepō utterance wedmn̥
turn welwō valley klopnis
turn wr̥ stis valuation mēdos
turn wr̥ tō value wertos
turn around witājō vane jālós
turned aside pérpern̥ ks vanish dhchínāmi
turnip rāpom variegated pelupoikos
twelfth dwṓ dekəmos vase gheutlom
twelve dwṓ dekm̥ vegetable ghelos
twentieth dwídkm̥təmos vegetation dhl̥nā
twenty dwídkm̥tī vehicle weghtlom
twice dwīs veil wəreikā
twig lougos veil gheughō
twin jemós vein weisnā
twisted lordós very abhro-
two dwōu, dwāu, dwōu very per(i), per(ti)
two each dwīsnōs very cold geldhós
two hundred dwikm̥tṓ s very well úperesū
two hundredth dwikm̥témtəmos vessel bhidhós
type qoros vessel kaukos
udder ūdhr̥ vessel lestrom
udder ūdhros veteran gerwós
uērus sontis victim wéiktomā
ugly bhoidhos victory seghos
ugly bhoidos view dr̥ ktis
ugly tr̥ pis vigor wr̥ gā
un- n̥ vigorous súnoros
unbind luwō (lewō) vigour woikā́
unbound lūnós village woikos
unbound lūtós vine weitis
uncle áwontlos vine-leaf pámponos
uncle pətrujós violent twoisós
under sup violet sleiwos
under upo virginal poughos

403
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
virtue dekos wave wn̥ dā
vis-à-vis seqi waving wiprós
viscose cobhōn way itr̥
vision dr̥ kos way pontēs
visitor setis way tropos
vital energy aiwu way weghjā
vivid ētros we n̥ sme
voice woqs we wejes / weje
vomit wémāmi weak klamrós
vow wochējō weak lēnis
vulture bhāsos weaken bhleumi
vulture cl̥turós weaken mlājō
wade sworā weaken ml̥kāmi
wake up bhudhjai weakness bhelu
wake up gerjō wealth opnā
walk steighō weapon wēbēn
walk wadhō weapon wedhr̥
wall mākesjā wear gesō
wall walnom weasel kérberos
wall dhoighos weasel mūstrom
walls moinja weather wedhrom
walnut knuwā weave krekō
wander ersājō weave webhō
war dsā weave wegō
warm chormós web tekstlom
warm teplós webbing wəréikonjom
warm cherō wedge kúnejos
warmth topnos wedge tr̥ mēts
warn monejō weed mousos
warp keukō weed runkō
warrior meilēts weed sərijō
wart wersmn̥ weep bhlēmi
was bhūm weft traghsmā
wash klewō weigh kenkō
wash lowō weight pondos
wash neicō welcome crātós
wasp wopsā well bhrewr̥
watcher bhulkos well sū
water āps went sodóm
water aqā west éperom
water m̥bhu wet molqos
water weri wet oucós
water wodā́ wet wosmós
water wodr̥ wet rəgājō
water wopjā wet (be) ucējō
water prúsneumi what qis qid
water cloud nembhos wheat bhar
watercress cérurom wheat bharseinā
wave tusnā wheat bhreugsmn̥
wave weipō wheel dhroghós
wave welnā wheel qeqlom

404
 Appendix II: Late Indo-European Lexicon
wheel rotā will weltis
wheelrim kantos will welmi
wheelrim witus willing wolós
whelp kuwos willow salēiks
whelp mondós willow widhus
when jom win winkō
when qm̥dō wind wentos
when qom wind gergō
whenever s(w)ei wind wondhejō
where qomde window louksā
where qodhei wine woinos
where (rel.) jodhei wine-cask kl̥pros
wherefore jori wing agslā
wherefrom qotrōd wing peterós
whey misgā winnow neikō
which qād winter gheimr̥
which qóteros winter ghjems
whine ghirrijō winterly gheimrīnós
whip wəlepējō wintry ghéimentos
whip werbos wipe mn̥ trājō
whirl cr̥ cots wipe mr̥ gneumi
whirl twr̥ bhōn wipe tergō
whirl snerō wire chislom
whirlpool dhwolsā wire weiros
whisper swerō wisdom widjom
whisper swrswrājō wise gnōwos
whistle sweighlājō wise widris
whistle sweisdō witch wikkā
white albhos with km̥ti
white argis with kom
white kweidos withdraw anjō
white-stained bhlōros wither wijēskō
whither qō without əneu
whither qote withraw kesdō
whither qotrēd witness tristis
who, which qos qā(i) qod wolf wailós
whoever jos qis, jā, qis, jod qid wolf wl̥qos
whoever qāqos woman cenā
whole solwos woman morignā
whore loutsā womb colbhos
whore skortom wonder smeirai
why ? qori wonderful smeiros
wicked n̥ probhwos wood deru
wide plākos wood kl̥dos
wide urús wooden drumós
widely known wíklutom woodpecker kikjā
widow wídhewā woodpecker peikā
wife sm̥loghós woodpiece skoidos
wife uksōr woodworker tetkōn
wild ghwērós wool wl̥nā
wild reudos word wr̥ dhom

405
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
work drājō yell klāmājō
work drātis yellow bhlōwos
work opos yellow knakos
work wergom yes jāi
work wr̥ gjō yesterday dhghjesi
work with a yew oiwos
penō
thread yoke jugóm
workman drātṓr you jusmé
world dhoubnom you juwes / juwe
worm longhros you tū
worm ochis young júwenis
worm qr̥ mis young juwn̥ kós
worm wormis young juwōn
worn bhoros young goat ghaidos
worry mérneumi youngster machos
worse pedjṓ s youth júwn̥ tā
worship jagjō youth machotis
worthy deknos
wound elkos
wound wolnos
wound chendō
wound swr̥ neumi
wrap wipjō
wrap out werpō
wrapping wélwm̥en
wrath eisā
wring out légneumi
wrinkle gorbos
wrist dornom
write skreibhō
yarn glomos
yarn snēmn̥
yawn ghanos
year atnos

406
 Appendix II: Late Indo-European Lexicon

II.2. LATE INDO-EUROPEAN – ENGLISH

Latin meaning and syntax (Synt.) further define the English meaning and proper
usage of the LIE words, while the notes show their proper inflection. The PIH column
shows the laryngeal reconstruction of the words, or the roots behind LIE vocabulary.
Late IE Synt. Notes PIH Meaning (Latin)
əgjō intr H3eg affirm aiō
əgsājō tr proclaim proclamō
əgtis fem speech contiō
əneu ind without sine
əpjō inc H2ep reach apīscor
ərijai inc set out orior
ərots mas et charioteer auriga
əsnātis fem jo harvest segēs
ábelos mas H2eb-(e)lo, ā̆bōl- apple malum
HºHi3-bh- r̥ /n̥ ;
abhnós adI HºHiº3-bh-r̥ /n̥ ; cf. sudden repentīnus
ōkús
praefi
abhro- (per-) very per-
x
acnos mas H2eg(wh)-no lamb agnus
ad ind at ad
adejō tr AIIIo prepare praeparō
adghō tr AIIa H2edgh beset circumueniō
adhos neus es axe ascia
ādmi tr BIf HeHi2-d-; adjō dry (to) siccō
admn̥ neu rite ritus
ados neu ádesos H2ed-os spelt ador
āghar intr perf. fear metuō
ágherom neu lake lacus
plough
aghjā fem H2egh iūmentum
animal
aghlós adI repellent repellens
aghlóws fem (aghlewós) drizzle irrorātiō
ághneumi tr BIVb afflict affligō
agīnós adII of rams/goats caprīnus
aglā fem brood prōlēs
ágəlis adI H2eg- Hli-/ ili- /Hlo- agile agilis
agmn̥ neu en rank agmen
agō cau H2eg push agō
agos mas H2ego- fault noxa
HeH 2gó-, HeH 3gó- /
i i

agós mas HºHiº2g-, HºHiº3g-; ram ariēs

aigs
agrā fem massacre trucidatiō
ágrēnom neu H2eg-r fruit fructus
agróqolās mas farmer agricola
agros mas H2egro- land ager
agslā fem wing āla
407
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
agtós adI pushed actus
aichesājō sta feel ashamed pudet
aidhis fem ej hearth aedes
H2eHio2-dh/
aidhō intr burn ardeō
HoHio2-dh
aigā fem H2eigeH2 oak robus
aigros adI H2oig-ro ill aeger
aijus mas (aijewós) moisture ūmor
meet with
aikō tr AIa H3eHiº2k ic(i)ō
point (to)
áimneumi BIVb copy imitor
aimom neu H2eimo- replication effigĭēs
ainō sta H3eHi2; dat; cf. ōimi belong pertineō
H3eHi2; uox media:
áineumi tr BIVb provide praehibeō
áinumai
aiqos adI even aequus
airā fem H2eireH2 ryegrass lolium
aisdai tr H2eisd- honour honorō
aisdhom neu ardour ardor
H1eisk- / H2eisk- ?
aiskrós adI clear clārus
aidh-sk?
aisō tr H2eis- respect reuereor
H2eis(o)ske/o-;
áisoskō tr request quaerō
aisskō
aisskā fem desire desiderium
aitis fem jo H3eHi2-ti / H3Hi2-ti part pars
áiw(es)i ind always semper
áiwesos mas period aetas
aiwós adII H2eiwo- eternal aeuus
áiwotāts fem jo eternity aetas
H2oiwu(s)/ H2oiwi-
aiwu neu vital energy uitālitās
/H2oiwo-/ H2oiwā-
ájeri ind HºHi2eri early mane
ájesnos adII brassy aereus
ajos neu es H2ei-os brass aes
ákeris fem jo maple acer
ákeswos mas pile aceruus
akējō intr Hº3H 2k-
i be sharp aceō
akjēs fem Hº3Hi2k- blade aciēs
akmā fem bit buccella
akmōn mas (ákmenos) H2ek-mon stone lapis
aknā fem prickle agna
áknāmi tr BIVa eat edō
akōkós mas Hº3Hi2k-H3oHi2k- scammony acridium
akos neu es chaff acus
Hº3(e)Hi2k-ri-,
akris adI sharp ācer
Hº3(e)Hi2k-(e)ro-
akrom neu Hº3Hi2k-ro- promontory promontorium
áksijā fem axe ascia
aksis mas jo H2egws-iH2 axle axis
aksteinos fem broom genista
ákulos mas sting aculeus
408
 Appendix II: Late Indo-European Lexicon
sharpened
ákūmn̥ neu Hº3Hi2k-uHmn̥ acūmen
point
akus fem ew needle acus
alā! excl. hello heus!
alājai intr stroll ambulō
albhos adI H2elbho- white albus
alchos mas money pecūnia
canālis
aldhōn mas en trough
pecudum
alēiks (alikós) spelt alica
álesnos fem H2el-esno- alder alnus
alghējō sta be cold algeō
aljos lois id H2el-yo another alius
to another
áljote ind aliō
place
alkejō tr AIIIo protect tueor
alkis fem court cohors
alō tr nourish alō
alpos adI small paruus
álteros adII the other one alter
altjos adII altjós adult adultus
altós adI high altus
ā́ lujos mas garlic ālius
álumn̥ neu H2elu- beer ceruisia
amājō tr HemH, cf. omos love (to) amō
ambhí ind H2n̥ tbhí ? > *H2n̥ tbhí around circum
public
ambhíagtos mas ambhíagots agens publicus
servant
ámbhinom neu circuit circuitus
ambhíqolos mas servant seruus
ambhírēmos mas travel iter
ambhou lois both ambō
H2emg h-;
w cf.
amchḗ n mas (amchnós) neck collus
amghús
ámeikā fem friend amīca
amēiks mas (amikós) friend amīcus
ámetā fem aunt amita
amghō tr H2emgh oppress angō
amghús adI H2mghu-; amghus narrow angustus
ámghustis fem narrowness angustiae
cf. aidhō; HeHi2-/
āmi tr BIIf heat calefaciō
HHi2-nu-mi
ammā fem mother mamma
āmós mas seizing apprehensiō
amrós adI H3mH2-ró sour amārus
āmros - āmrei mas cf. āmi morning mane
amsō tr H2emH1 mow dēmetō
an ind perhaps forsan
mas /
anəts et H2enH2-t(i)- duck anas
fem
ana ind ∂na; H2en- to ad
ándhesā fem maid uirgō
409
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
andhō tr H2end(h); cf. kandō kindle accendō
andhos adI blind caecus
anglos mas H2eng-lo articulation rotula
anjō tr withdraw remoueō
ankos mas H1enko-; cf. onkos hook ancus
ankmi tr BIf H2/3enk bestow dōnō
anksí ind cf. noqtis before dawn anteluciō
time before
ánksitjom neu antelucānum
dawn
anəmos mas H2enH1(e)-mo breath animus
annā fem granny anus
anos mas ring anus
ansā fem handle ansa
provided with
ansātos adII ansātus
handle
amsus mas H2emsu- creātor creātōr
anta ind towards uersus
antas H2enH2teH2 portico antae
antí ind H1enti before ante
ántijos adI antique antiquus
ántitjos classical classicus
antjās fem pl. tantum fringe antiae
antjom neu end fīnis
antrom neu cave tugurium
anus fem H2enu- grandmother anus
ā́ peros mas shore ripa
apmn̥ neu apsmṇ fastening copula
apnis fem ej H2ep-ni brook amnis
apo ind H2epo; apó from ab
apóqitis fem revenge represalia
ápōqos adI *apoHkwo- backward āuersus
apóstətis fem distance distantia
apóteri ind behind post
apóteros adI hint posterus
apowesonts adII apēsn̥ ts absent absens
ápowoiks mas (ápowoikjos) colony colonia
appās mas dad pappa
apros mas Hepro- boar aper
āps fem (após) H2e(H)p- water aqua
apsā fem H2epseH2 asp pōpulus tremula
apsos mas limb membrum
aqā fem H2ekweH2 water aqua
ar ind therefore ergō
arājō tr H2rH1; H1rjō; arjō plough arō
árarjō tr adjust adaptō
arātrom neu plough arātrum
árdejā fem heron ardea
ardis fem ej point punctus
arejō tr H2erH destroy destruō
árgn̥ tom neu H2rg- silver argentum
argis adI argus white albus
argrós adI H2(e)rgró- brilliant splendidus
410
 Appendix II: Late Indo-European Lexicon
argujō tr H2orgu-je/o reason arguō
arjos mas sir dominus
ármn̥ tom neu cattle armentum
armos mas H2erH-mo- arm armus
arom neu H2erom reed harundō
ārōn mas (ā́ renos) H2eH2r-on/en- kidney rēnēs
arqos mas H2rkwo- bow arcus
arti ind precisely adeō
artis fem jo art ars
artus mas joint artus
árusā fem H2er- hazelnut abellāna
arwā fem butter aruīna
H2erH3w-o \ r̥ /n-
arwom neu 'granum' \ -on/n- field aruum
'granātus'
āsā fem HeHi2-seH2 altar āra
āsējō sta HeHi2-s-ējō be dry areō
āsos mas ash cinis
astris mas ej hawk astur
astus mas guile astus
ati ind again re(d)
atiloiqos mas remnant reliquiae
atis fem seabream sparus aurata
atlos adI H2et-lo- noble nōbilis
atnos mas year annus
ātmós mas breath halitus
ātō intr AIIe HºHw2et- breathe respirō
atqe and ac
ātros adI H1eH2-tro black āter
attās mas dad tata
audhos mas sir dominus
augā́ fem H2eugeH2 glance fascis
augejō cau AIIIo cf. wogsejō make grow augeō
augējō sta AIIIe be big magnus sum
augmn̥ neu en increase augmentum
augō intr H2ewg; cf. augsō increase increscō
augos neu áugestis development auctum
augsō intr cf. augō increscō increase
augtós adI grown auctus
aulos fem HHw1l- tube conductus
auqslā fem cf. uqnós pot aula
ausijō tr empty hauriō
H2euso-, H2w-
ausom neu gold aurum
es-eH2
ausṓ s; H2eus-
ausōsā fem dawn aurōra
oHs-eH2
ausrom neu morning matīna
áussketi intr dawn illūcescō
áusteros eastern orientālis
aw ind howbeit autem
awā fem fountain fons
awējō tr H2ew desire desiderō
411
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
áweljā fem breeze aura
awigsnā fem H2ewig-sneH2 oat auēna
áwijā fem grandmother auia
awis fem ej H2ewH1i- bird auis
awisdhijō tr H2ewi(s) + dheH1 feel sentiō
awn̥ neu (ávenos) fountain fons
awo ind H2ew(o) back retrō
H2ew; cf. wesō spend the
awō dur pernoctō
<*H2w-es- night
áwontlos mas uncle auunculus
awos mas H2euH2o- grandfather auus
awti ind or aut
awtim ind otherwise autem
awtjos adI H2eut- destitute destitūtus
badjos adI orange badius
baitā fem skirt falda
baktlom club baculum
bálbalos and barbaric barbarus
balbos adI tongue-tied balbus
bámbalos drum bombus
locutiō sine
batā fem babble
sensu
baubājai intr bark latrō
bebājō intr bleat bēbō
belom neu strenght uis
bélowents neu strong robustus
bendā fem end extrēmum
bendlā mas pintle cnodax
bhəskō tr pronounce pronuntiō
bhətjō tr hit quatiō
bhəwējō tr bhH2w- /bhH3w dat. be favourable faueō
bhabhā fem bean faba
bhāghus mas ew arm bracchium
bhagjō tr fry frigō
bhagō cau atribute addicō
bhagos mas portion portiō
bhāgos fem bheH2go- beech fāgus
bhalnós mas penis pēnis
bhāmn̥ neu speech affāmen
bhāmā fem rumor fāma
bhāmoi intr bhH2-moi speak for
bháneumi tr BIVb illuminate illūminō
bhānis fem sentence sententia
bhānom neu lighting illuminātiō
bhānús adI bhānus bright lucidus
bhāos neu (bháaesos) bheH2os; bhāwos light lux
bhar neu (bharós) wheat far
bhardhā fem beard barba
bharkos mas brooch fibula
bharseinā fem wheat farīna
bharsjom neu bread pānis
bharwos fem pinetree pīnus
412
 Appendix II: Late Indo-European Lexicon
bhaskis mas bundle fascis
bhāsos mas vulture ūltur
bhātis fem bh∂tis expression expressiō
bhebhros mas beaver fīber
bhecō intr AIa run currō
bhedhō intr AIb require postulō
bhegō cau curb arcuō
bheidhō tr AIa trust fīdō
bheikos fem fig fīcus
bheiqlā fem bheiq- bee apēs
non IE? Item pelekus
bheitlom mas axe ascia
ai. paraś u
bheldō intr AIa knock battuō
bhelēks fem coot fulica
bheljō tr H3bhel enhance prosperō
bhelō intr fluoresce superluceō
bhelō intr bhelH; cf. spelō make noise strepō
bhelu neu weakness dēbilitas
bhélunā fem henbane hyosciamus
bhemr̥ (bhémenos) thigh femur
bhendhō tr AIa bind ligō
bhendhros mas mate collēga
bhendos adI melodious melodicus
bhenjom hit contusiō
bherāgs fem (bhergos) bherH2-g birch betulla
bherghō tr AIa keep conseruō
bherkō sta AIa cf. merkō glimmer fulgeō
bhermi (bherō) tr Bia bhHr; bher bear bherō
bhermn̥ neu burden onus
bhernā fem breach fissūra
bhristi ? cf. testis
bhersi ind quickly citō
<*tristis
bherwō inc AIa boil feruō
bhesmi intr BIa blow spirō
cf. bhudhjai; caus.
bheudhō inc AIa be awake uigilō
bhoudhejō
bheughō perf. AIa succeed eueniō benē
bheugō AIa fold flectō
bheurō tr (liquidō) knead commisceō
bhéwedā fem profit compendium
bhewmi dur BIa / BIIb bhwH2 be sum
bhéwonom neu reality reālitās
bhewtis fem jo bhūtis, bhūtís nature nātura
bhewtlom neu environment circumiectus
bhíbheimi tr fear timeō
bhidhós mas vessel fiscus
bhidrós adI bitter acerbus
bhilis adI good bonus
bhínāmi tr BIVa bhiH strike tundō
bhindō cau cleave findō
bhītós adI bhiH-tó struck tusus
bhləgsmā fem flame flamma
413
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
bhlādhrom neu fan flābellum
bhlaghmn̥ neu priest flāmen
bhlagō tr hit tundō
bhlaidos adI clear candidus
bhlakkos adI thin flaccus
bhlāmi tr blow flō
bhledō intr AIa boast glorior
bhleicō intr AIa hit flīgō
bhleidō intr AIa inflate inflor
bhlēmi intr weep fleō
bhlendhos adI dim sublustris
bhleumi tr BIII/AIIIu bhelujō weaken dēbilitō
bhleusō tr AIa choke suffocō
bhlewmn̥ neu en bhleugsmṇ ? stream flūmen
bhlewō intr AIa bhleucō?; bhleuH- flow fluō
bhl̥gējō sta shimmer fulgeō
bhl̥kjō tr support fulciō
bhlokos mas flake floccus
candidē
bhlōros white-stained
maculātus
bhlōs mas (bhlēsos) bhleH3-s- flower flōs
bhlosējō sta bloom floreō
bhloskos mas scandal scandalum
bhlōtis fem (bhlōtjos) bhlH-ti flower flos
bhlōwos adI bhleH3; cf. bhlōs yellow flāuus
bhn̥ ghus adI dick crassus
bhod ind really enim
bhodhjō tr dig fodiō
bhodhwos mas scald-crow coruus
bhodjṓ s adI (comparātīuus) better melius
bhodrós adI excellent excellens
bhodsā fem grave fossa
bhogā́ fem guerrilla guerrilla
bhogājō intr contend litigō
bhogjos mas crook amnis
bhoglā fem stream amnis
bhoiH-dhH1o- <bhei
bhoidhos adI ugly foedus
'timeō'
bhoidos neu es ugly foedus
bhoiqos mas drone fūcus
bhokos flame focus
bholghis mas ej bag follis
bholjom neu bheljom leaf folium
bhōljóm neu bhōwljóm den cubīle
bholos mas steam uapor
bholós adI noisy strepitosus
bhondhsā fem crib praesēpēs
bhōr mas bhrós thief fūr
bhorājō tr bore forō
bhorcos adI rough rudis
bhoros mas worn gestāmen
bhorsos adI proud superbus
414
 Appendix II: Late Indo-European Lexicon
bhosos adII barefoot planipēs
bhoudhejō cau AIIIo awaken expergefaciō
bhougā́ fem flight fūga
bhougājō cau put to flight fūgō
bhōwijós adI bheHwiyó- favourable propitius
bhrātēr mas (bhrātros) bhreH2-ter brother frāter
bhrātreinos mas brother's son sobrīnus
bhrā́ trijos adII brotherly frāternus
bhr̥ Hg-i̯ó, pf.
bhrēgjō intr smell fragrō
bhebhróHg/bhr̥ Hg-
bhrēgō intr AIIf shine luceō
bhrH1g-ro, bhrH1g-
bhrēgrós adI smelling odōrus
no; bhragrós
bhreigō tr AIa bhreig, bhri-né/n-g- fry frigō
bhremō intr AIa grunt fremō
bhrendhō intr AIa gush up exuberō
bhrenō intr AIa edge excellō
bhresjō tr shatter disrumpō
bhreugs mas (bhrugós) fruit frux
bhreugsmn̥ neu en wheat frūmentum
bhreugtis fem jo use ūsus
bhreukō tr AIa strike mulceō
bhrēunā neu limit līmes
bhreusō cau AIa swell tumefaciō
bhrēwā fem bridge pons
bhrewō tr AIa brew concoquō
bhrewr̥ neu (bhrewṇos) well puteus
bhr̥ ghjai intr AIVc rise surgō
bhr̥ ghos adI bhṛghú- high altus
bhrigijō intr chirp frigō
bhrijājō tr crumble friō
bhr̥ ijō cau bhHriyō/bhHruyō cut open incīdō
bhríkāmi tr press premō
bhr̥ kjō tr stuff farcio
bhr̥ ksnos fem bhrH2g-sno ashtree frāxinus
ritual
bhr̥ ghtom neu cantus
composition
bhr̥ ktos adI cf. mṛktos speckled uarius
bhr̥ mā incision incisiō
bhrn̥ gō tr bhrH1-g break frangō
bhrogkos mas bhroHgko- badger mēlēs
bhroigos mas summit cacumen
bhrosdhos fem cedar cedrus
bhrounóm neu cf. bhrūnós scale squāma
bhroustom neu fragment frūstum
bhrówn̥ tis mas forehead frōns
bhr̥ stís fem tip cuspis
bhr̥ tis fem bearing portātiō
bhrughnos fem bulrush iuncus
bhrūgjai tr AIVa bhreuH-g use fruor
bhrugs mas (bhrugós) throat guttur

415
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
bhruH-no-; cf.
bhrūnós adI brown spādix
bhrounó-
bhrūs fem (bhruvós) H3bhruH; bhrews eyebrow brus
bhrúsnāmi tr BIVa break defringō
bhrusnjā fem cuirass lorīca
bhrusos mas breast pectus
bhrustóm neu particle particula
bhrutēks mas (bhrutkós) (bhrutkós) bush frutex
bhrwtom neu bhrwHtó- syrup dēfrutum
bhudhjai inc AIVa bhundō; cf. bheudhō wake up expergiscōr
bhudhmn̥ neu en soil solum
bhudhnos mas ground fundus
bhugjō dur flee fugiō
bhugos mas he-goat caper
bhūjai intr AIIIu bhH2u-je/o begin incipiō
bhukús adI bhukus blunt hebes
bhuljā́ fem swelling tumor
bhulkos mas watcher uigil
bhūm intr (aor. ab esmi) bhHu-m; bhwom was fuī
bhungai intr serve fungor
bhusājō tr kiss osculō
bhūsjō intr hasten percurrō
bhūtā́ fem dwelling mansiō
bhutjō tr hit quatiō
bhūtós adII been part. pf. esse
bistlis fem gall bīlis
blaktā fem cockroach blatta
blatsājō intr chatter blaterō
blēkājō intr bleat bēbō
bn̥ dus mas drop gutta
bodhrós adI deaf surdus
bokkos mas goat caper
bólboljō intr AIVd explode explōdō
bolkos mas tunnel cuniculus
boukājō intr resound personō
brenghos adI rough raucus
bughōn mas eagle owl bubō
bukkā fem mouthful bucca
cəlā fem gullet gula
cəlājō intr fly uolō
cəlēnós adI tired lassus
cadhō intr gwH2dh dive immergō
cāmn̥ neu step gradus
cécālos adI mundane mundānus
cedhō tr AIa torment cruciō
cejwō dur AIa gwH3ei-w live uīuō
cēlejō cau AIIIo torture tormentō
céln̥ dis fem ej acorn glans
celō tr AIa gwelH2 throw away abiciō
célwonom neu gwelH1-ono- bath-tub lauābrum
gwm̥jō, gwm̥-skō;
cemjō intr come ueniō
cm̥jō, cm̥skō
416
 Appendix II: Late Indo-European Lexicon
cenā fem gwnH2; gwēnis, gwnā woman mulier
cerbhō devour uorō
ceri neu ej gwerH- mountain mons
cerjō intr AIa finish finiō
cerō tr AIb praise laudō
cerō sta have fever febriō
ceru neu ew pike ueru
cérurom neu watercress berrum
(s)gwes(H2); cesō,
césneumi tr BIVb extinguish exstinguō
cesjō
cespis fem branches foliamen
cetus mas resin bitūmen
ceudhos neu es rubbish immunditia
chaisos adI ghwH2y-so beautiful pulcher
chedhjō tr AIa chedhō pray rogō
cheldi neu bile fel
chelō tr AIa H1ghwel desire desiderō
chendō cau wound feriō
chenmi tr murder interficiō
chentis fem jo cf. chn̥ tjā death nex
cherō tr chorejō warm calefaciō
cheros neu es heat calor
chislom neu wire fīlum
chl̥nō tr deceive fallō
chn̥ tjā fem cf. chentis combat proelium
chodhjā fem longing dēsiderium
chōks fem (chkos) chōkeH1? torch fax
chonos mas sound sonitus
chonós adI abundant abundans
choris adI bitter acerbus
chormós adI chermos, chermós warm formus
chornos mas chṛnos hearth fornus
chrensmós; cf.
chrensós mas summer heat aestus
cherō
chr̥ jō intr be violent furō
cícāmi inc BIIa gweH2 go away abeō
cijā fem fold ouīle
cínāmi intr BIVa prevail praeualeō
cīrós adI lush laetus
cistis fem finger digitus
gwH3itu-, gwH3i-taH2,
cītā fem life uita
gwH3iwotā
cīwāks adI lively uīuax
cīwos mas gwH3i-wo- life uita
cīwós adI gwH3i-wó- alive uīuus
cīwotos mas animal animāl
cl̥nāmi intr BIVa gwlH agonise praepatior
cl̥turós mas vulture uultur
cm̥tis fem march itus
cobhōn adI viscose conglūtīnōsus
coinos mas sack saccus
colbhos mas womb uterus
417
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
corós mas big eater cibicida
cosdhos mas rod uirga
cotejō tr AIIIo mention allūdō
cotlós mas swelling tumōr
coucis fem shit merda
coudhros adI dirty immundus
cowijós adII bovine bouīnus
cówqolos mas herdsman pāstor
cows and cewos gweH3u- / gwH3eu- cow bōs
cowstā́ s (cowstajós) gwou-stH2 ox-stall bouīle
gwṛH2-u/ gwṛeH2u/
cr(āw)ús adI heavy grauis
gwreH2u; cṛ(āw)us
crətos adI gwrH-tó heavy brūtus
crājō tr gwrH3 devour uorō
cr̥ dos adI cṛdus clumsy inconcinnus
crātós adI gwrH2-to welcome grātus
crā́ wenus mas gwreH2-n /gwreH2-w millstone mola
cr̥ cestjom neu hovel gurgustium
cr̥ cots mas (cṛcetós) whirl gurgues
crebhos mas embryon foetus
creughos adI gwru-Hgh sad maestus
croghos mas Adam's apple adamī malum
crotsos adI gwr̥ sto-? big grossus
croughnos adI sorrow maestitia
crús fem (cṛewós) crane grus
gwrH2ruteH2(t)-
crutā fem heaviness grauitās
crutāts
dā ind certainly certō
daimoi tr divide up distribuō
d(e)H2i-ti-; d(e)H2i-
daitis fem time tempus
mon-
brother-in-
daiwēr mas (daiwrós) leuir
law
akru / dṛk-akru
>drakru > dakru /
dakru neu ew tear lacrima
skw-akru /H2ekur -
H2ekuenos
dāmos mas mate sodālis
dānus mas river fluuius
dápnāmi tr BIVb be expensive carus esse
dapnom neu cost of a feast impensa dapis
daps mas dapós banquet daps
dáwētā fem torch taeda
dáwetus mas conflagration incendium
dáwneumi tr BIVb deH2w-- scorch accendō
dawtis fem fuel cibus ignis
from
dē ind dē
upwards
debhō tr AIa knead depsō
dedrus mas allergy allergia
deghā fem tick rihipicephalus
deikmn̥ neu example exemplum
418
 Appendix II: Late Indo-European Lexicon
deikō tr AIa show monstrō
deikos mas deiks (dikós) address directiō
deiktis fem quoque diktis indication indicātiō'
deiwā fem goddess dea
déiwijos adII godly dīuus
deiwos mas god deus
deiwotāts fem (deiwotātjos) deity deitās
deiwots adI (déiwetos) rich dīues
dekəmós adII tehth decimus
dekējō intr be proper decet
dekm̥ ind dekm(t) ten decem
dékm̥tulos mas finger digitus
deknos adI worthy dignus
dekai tr AIb receive accipiō
dekos neu es virtue decus
right-hand
deksis fem dextera pars
side
deksiwós fem right dexter
déksiteros adII right dexter
deljō tr AIVc dHl; del; cf. doljō calculate calculō
delō tr split abiungō
demos neu es building aedēs
demō tr dem(H2?) build construō
demtis fem dm̥tis; demr̥ construction constructiō
denkō tr AIa bite admordeō
densō tr AIa infere dēdūcō
dentis mas jo H1dont- / H1dṇ t- tooth dens
deqsjō fac present praesentō
derbhō intr AIa turn gyrō
get
derghō intr AIa cumulō
cumulated
derH; d(e)rjō,
derō tr separate sēparō
dr̥ neHmi
deru neu (drewos) derH-u; doru wood lignum
deukō tr AIa drag dūcō
deuks and (dukós) leader dux
deusō tr spoil ruinō
dew ind dewH2 dweH2 far procul
dhəmis fem hunger famēs
dhəmelós fem dhH1melo- foundation fundātiō
dhəmos mas dhH1mo- employee famulus
dhətis fem exhaustion exhaustiō
dhabhros mas skillful habilis
dhanus fem dhanwos pinetree abiēs
dhaunos adI predator praedator
dhchínāmi inc BIVb (s)dhgwhHi vanish abeō
dhchitis fem destruction dēlētiō
(H)dhebh;
dhebhō tr AIa impair dēminuō
dhébhneumi
dhebhús adI diminished dēminutus
dhechō dur AIa burn ardeō
dhēdhjos dhēdhos grandfather auus
419
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
dhedhmós mas decree consultus
dheghom mas (dhghmos) dhghmós, dheghoms earth humus
dheghwis fem inflammation inflammātiō
dheicō tr AIa dheigw puncture figō
dhéicodhlā brooch fibula
dheimi tr dheHi1 suck sūgō
dhejō tr AIb put ponō
dhelbhō tr AIa bury inhumō
dhēlēiks adI (dhēlikós) productive fēlix
dhēlgs fem (dhḷgos) scythe falx
dhēljos mas baby lactans
dhelō intr AIb shine splendeō
dhēlós mas teat tetta
dhēmn̥ neu condition habitus
dhemō intr AIb steam up uaporō
dhḗ monā fem dhēlus female femina
dhenghō tr AIa press imprimō
produce of
dhēnom neu genitūra terrae
land
dhēnos neu es interest faenus
functionem
dherbhō inc AIa start
incipiō
dherghnos fem sloe prūnus spinōsa
dherghō tr strengthen corroborō
dherghos adI dark obscūrus
dherghs fem (dhṛghos) shit excrēmentum
dherkō cau AIa stain maculō
dhermi tr dherH2 retain retineō
duty
dhēs mas (dhasós) dhH1s- sacrificātiō
(religious)
dhētis fem jo dhHtí-, dheHti- fact factum
enough (to
dheughō intr AIa sufficiō
be)
dheukō cau AIa destroy conterō
dheunos neu es dh(u)nH2 death fūnus
dhewō intr AIb dhewH1 run currō
dhghjesi ind yesterday herī
dhghomōn mas (dhghómenos) human being homō
dhghusā fem perch perca
dhicsnis mas jo end fīnis
dhídhēmi-dhəkjō tr BIIb / AIVb dheHi1 do faciō
dhídhneumi tr BIVb cf. dhídhēmi install instaurō
dhinghō tr AVIa model fingō
dhl̥eghlā fem dhl̥ghos debt dēbitum
dhl̥nā fem dhl̥H1nā; dhelH1 vegetation uiridia
dhn̥ ghus adI direct directus
dhobos adI solid solidus
dhochejō cau AIIIo make hot foueō
dhochos mas (dh)echṛ / (dh)ochṛ day diēs
dhoighos mas wall moenia
dholos mas hollow cauitas
dhombhos mas dove columba
420
 Appendix II: Late Indo-European Lexicon
dhōmós mas opinion sententia
dhōnā fem cereal cereāle
dhóncelos adI dark fuscus
dhoncos adI dark obscūrus
dhónejā fem hollow uōla
dhontis mas ej fountain fons
dhorjā fem diarrhea diarhea
dhoubhos adI deaf surdus
dhoubhús adI dhoubhus black āter
dhoubnom neu world mundus
dhōunis mas strick fūnis
dhraghō tr AIIa bring out prōmō
dhreghō intr AIa run around circumcurrō
dhrenkō intr ring out clangō
dhrēnos mas roar gemitus
dhrensājō intr cry drensō
do military
dhreughō sta AIa militō
service
dhrighsós mas bundle fascis
dhr̥ mos adI steady firmus
dhr̥ numoi intr BIVb dherH3 jump saltō
dhroghnom neu potter wheel tornus
dhroghós fem wheel rota
dhr̥ sō tr AIIh dare audeō
dhr̥ stis fem boldness audacia
dhr̥ sus adI bold audax
dhrubhjō tr dhrub(h)? crumble comminuō
dhrubhtis fem jo drop stilla
dhruslijō tr dherH2 dismantle dismontō
dhubús adI dhubus deep profundus
dhugtēr fem (dhugtrós) dhugH2ter daughter fīlia
dhuH2-jō; cf.
dhūjō eff smoke fūmō
dhúneumi, dhūmājō
dhūlis fem ej dhūlis soot fūligo
dhūmā fem down collis sabulī
dhūmājō eff cf. dhūjō smoke fūmō
dhūmós mas dhuH1-mo smoke fūmus
dhúneumi tr BIVb cf. dhūjō agitate agitō
dhūnis fem ej agitation agitātiō
dhūskos adI dark fuscus
dhwerō tr AIa dhwer/dhru deceive defraudō
dhwestus fem fleabane pulicāria
dhwēwis mas ej smoke uaporō
dhwolnos adI crazy insānus
dhwolsā fem whirlpool uertex
dhwonos mas sound sonitus
dhworis fem ej dhweris, dhur- door foris
dhworom neu courtyard forum
dhwosos/dhousos
dhwosos mas (masc.) /dhwesos - demon diabolus
es- (neut.)
dídēmi tr dH1(-je/o) tie ligō
421
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
dídjāmi tr BIIa deiH2; dínāmi shine splendeō
didkskō tr learn dīscō
dídn̥ skō inc didm̥skō; cf. dn̥ sus get skilled perītus fiō
dighā fem goat capra
dikjō tr AIVa reject reiciō
dinos fem dinā; cf. djēws day diēs
djejō intr move moueō
djēws mas (djwos) dyeH1-w; cf. dinos day diēs
dl̥ghējō intr dat maintain contineō
dl̥kus adI sweet dulcis
cp.
dleH1ghijos-,
dl̥nghos mas dlongho-, dlH1gho- long longus
sp.
dleH1ghistH2o-
dl̥nghotā fem dḷnghostus / -ostis length longitudō
dm̥pedom neu building place locus operum
dm̥pus adI blunt hebes
dm̥seghr̥ neu dṃseghnós domain dominium
dnghu-H2;
dn̥ ghwā fem tongue lingua
dṇt-ghuH2 ?
dn̥ sus adI thick densus
dn̥ sus adI dm̥sus; cf. dídn̥ skō qualified perītus
dō ind to ad
doiknejō tr AIIIo mean significō
dokejō pred AIIIo seem uideor
doklom mas tail cauda
dolājō tr dolH1- cudge dolō
dolejō tr AIIIo dolH1- disrupt dīrumpō
dolghos mas dew ros
doljō tr dolHje/o-; cf. deljō allure pelliciō
dōljom mas barrel dōlium
dolos mas fraud dolus
dom ind still dum
demH2; domejō,
BIIIa, AIIIo,
dómāmi tr d∂mjō, démāmi, tame domō
AIVc, BIVa
dm̥nāmi, dmāsmi
(dí)dōmi tr BIIc deHw3 give dō
(domõs,
domos fem dom(H2)o-; domus house domus
dómewos)
dómūnā fem landlady domina
dómūnos mas landlord dominus
donkrós adI fasting iēiūnus
dōnom neu doH3-no /doH3-ro gift dōnum
dornom neu wrist manicula
doros mas rent scissūra
dōsos mas slave seruos
dōtis fem jo dowry dos
dounom neu duHno-, dūno- town oppidum
dousmos mas bush dūmus
dóusontos mas arm braccium
drājō intr work laborō
drappos mas drapery drappus
422
 Appendix II: Late Indo-European Lexicon
drātis fem work labos
drātṓr mas jo workman operārius
dr̥ drājō intr murmur murmurō
dremō (dídrāmi) intr drewō run currō
drepō AIa cut out abscindō
dreughō cau AIa beguile dēcipiō
drewā fem course cursus
drewom neu cf. deru tree arbōs
drewō tr AIa treat consuēscō
drismós adI harsh asper
dristos mas bramble dūmus
dr̥ kjai peri intr. be visible manifestor
dr̥ kjō tr make up perspiciō
dr̥ kō tr see uideō
dr̥ kos mas vision faciēs
dr̥ ksmos mas perspective prospectus
dr̥ ktā fem light lūmen
dr̥ ktis fem view conspectus
dr̥ ktis fem jo seen uisus
dr̥ mijō dur fall asleep obdormiscor
dr̥ nós mas drH-nó split fragmentum
dr̥ tis fem split scissiō
dr̥ tós adI split scissus
drumós adI wooden ligneus
dr̥ wā fem ryegrass lolium
dsā fem dsH2 war bellum
dumbos mas tail caudula
dúnāmi tr duH2 arrange habilitō
dus ind bad malē
dúsōpis adI precarious precārius
duswids adI incompetent inscius
dweimi tr fear timeō
dwenos adI good bonus
dwídkm̥təmos adII twentieth uicesimus
dwídkm̥tī num (d)widkm̥tiH1 twenty uigintī
two
dwikm̥témtəmos adII ducentesimus
hundredth
num dwikm̥tóm (ind.) +
dwikm̥tṓs two hundred ducentī
dec gen.
dwipods adII jo biped bīpēs
dwīs lois twice bis
dwīskos adI matching pār
dwīsnōs lois two each bīnī
dwṓ dekm̥ num twelve duodecim
dwṓ dekəmos adII twelfth duodecimus
dweiros, dwīrós;
dwoiros adI fearful dīrus
dweisos?; cf. pūrós
dwoplós adII double duplus
dwóteros adII second secundus
dwōu, dwāu, num
two duo
dwōu dec
echmi tr BIa *H1egwhmi/ H1gwhn̥ ti drink bibō
423
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
ēchr̥ neu (échenos) H1eH1gwh- r̥ /n drink pōtiō
ēchr̥ jos adI drunken ēbrius
ecnis mas jo H1egw-ni- fire ignis
edhlos fem H1edh-lo- elder ebulus
edhr̥ neu (édhenos) palisade uallum
edjḗ w ind today hodie
edmi tr H1ed eat edō
edqis, edqid pron someone ecquis
ecquī, -quae, -
edqos, -qā, -qod pron some
quod
edunā fem pain dolor
edwolōn adI (edwólonos) bad malus
egējō sta lack egeō
(aghijós
ēghī fem <*H2oH1ghiH2- H2H1eghiH2 cow uacca
os)
H1egh-yo /
eghjos mas hedgehog er
H1ogh-i(H)no-
eghr̥ neu (eghnós) boundary circunscriptiō
egō pron (mene) egH(o)2 I egō
ei ind that ut
eikō tr Heik; H? have habeō
eimi dur H1ei go eō
eisā fem wrath ira
eisāskai inc be angry irāscor
eisom neu ice gelū
ek(sí) H1egh-si outside ex
eksoqs adI (éksoqjos) invisible inuisibilis
ékstəmos adI outermost extimus
ekstar neu (ékstaros) ek-stH2-ṛ, cf. enstar remoteness longinquitās
éksteros adI tab external exterior
ekstrōd ind from ex
ektós ind excepted praeter
ekwā fem mare equa
ekwīnós adII of horses equīnus
ekwos mas H1ekwo- horse equus
ēlā fem bodkin cuspis
elēn mas (alnós) cf. alkis red-deer alcēs
elkos neu es wound ulcus
elkós adI bad malus
ellus mas ew eel anguilla
elno elnā elnod pron cf. eno enā enod that ille illa illud
elóm tr (aor. a gesō) conducted gessī
elōr mas (éleros) swan olor
elwos pink rosaceus
emō tr take emō
empis fem insect insectus
en ind in in-
anghwis fem ej H2(e)ngwhi- ; cf. ochis snake anguis
endo ind H1(e)ndo(m) inside in
endósēdjom neu furniture suppellex
enim ind and et
424
 Appendix II: Late Indo-European Lexicon
enīqā fem eni-H3kw-eH2 face faciēs
enis adII tab certain quīdam
enkō prō tr AIa drive condūcō
ennós adI interior interior
H1/2eno-; cf. elno
eno enā enod pron that ille illa illud
elnā elnod
énsēdjom neu ambush insidiae
enslā fem island insula
enstar neu (énstaros) en-stH2-ṛ, cf. ekstar proximity proximitās
énteri ind between inter
énternos adI internal internus
énterom neu interval interuallum
énteros adI tab internal interior
énteros adI tab intestine intestīnus
entós ind inside intus
éperom neu west occidens
epi ind H1epi, H1opi; opi on insuper
ḗ pijos adII H1eH1p-i- relation adfīnis
épiromos adI ópiromos placed on top supernus
eplom neu H1ep-lo celebration celebrātiō
ercom neu H1ergwo- pulse erūm
erjos mas H1er- ram ariēs
erkō fac H1rk share commūnicō
ermi intr H1rH1 rest requiescō
ermos adI H1rH1-mo- abandoned solus
ernos adI upright arrectus
erō tr AIa heave erigō
éroros mas er-H3ero- eagle aquila
erqō intr AIa H1erkw shine splendeō
ersā fem H1ers- tail cauda
ersábhaljom neu tail cauda
ersājō sta wander errō
ersō intr AIa H1ers flow fluō
erwā fem land terra
esmi dur H1es be sum
ēsmoi intr be situated sum
esn̥ ts part (sn̥ tos) H1esn̥ t-; cf. sontis being qui est
esos m H1esH-o- housemaster erus
esr̥ neu (ésenos) H1esH2-r blood sanguis
ēsús adI eH1su- ?; ēsus good bonus
éteros adII second secundus
eti ind even etiam
étiqe ind etsqe even etiam
etmn̥ neu en soul animus
ētr̥ mas ētenós H1eH1-tr inside interior
ētros adI ātros ? vivid uiuidus
eukō tr AIa euk / eHwk be used colō
eusō intr H1eus burn ūrō
gálgaljō intr talk garriō
galnos mas power potentia
galnos mas gaul gallus

425
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
gangō intr pin down siffilō
gar ind ar ge indeed enim
garsijō intr talk garriō
geH2-dheH1 /
gāudhējō intr geH2wi-dheH1 / rejoice gaudeō
geH2-dhH1-sk ?
gaudhjom neu joy gaudium
ge ind at least quīdem
geigō sta AIa be bitter acūtus sum
geimō intr AIa sprout germinō
geisā fem gravel calculus
gélāmi intr BIIIa gelH1 laugh rīdeō
geldhós adI cf. kiklós very cold gelidus
geltis fem embryo fētus
gelu neu ew ice gelū
gembhō intr AIa germinate germinō
gemō tr AIb be loaded grauātus esse
gemros mas gemHro- son-in-law gener
genesājō cau create generō
gengā fem gum gingiua
genjos mas comp. -gnH1yo- gender sexus
genmn̥ neu en genH1mn̥ germ germen
genō intr AIb shout clāmō
genos neu es genH1os kin genus
gentis fem jo genH1ti- / gṇH1ti- family familia
gentlom neu genH1tlo- birth nascentia
gentṓr mas genH1tor parent genitor
gentrīks fem (géntrijos) genH1triH2 parent genitrīx
gentus mas genH1tu- procreation genitus
genu neu knee genū
genus neu maxilla maxilla
gergō cau AIa wind contorqueō
H1ger; med.
gerjō tr wake up expergefaciō
expergiscor
gerlós adI old senex
old (to
gerō prog AIa gerH2 sēnēscō
become)
gersā fem network gerra
gerwós mas veteran ueterānus
gesō tr (H2)ges wear gerō
geulom neu glowing ash fauilla
geustis fem jo taste gustus
gewō intr AIa resound resonō
ghəbhējō tr own possideō
cf. gherijai; caus.
ghərējō eff be glad gaudeō
ghorejoo
ghəris fem grace gratia
ghabhlom neu fork furca
ghabhros mas goat hircus
ghaidīnós adII goatish haedīnus
ghaidos mas young goat haedus
ghaisējō sta stick haereō
426
 Appendix II: Late Indo-European Lexicon
ghaisom neu spear gaesum
ghaisom neu stick pilum
ghaitā fem hair capillum
ghálerom neu disgrace labēs
ghandā fem shelduck ganta
ghanos neu es yawn hiātus
ghansōr mas er goos anser
ghastā fem spearshaft hasta
ghawō tr ghH2ew / ghwH2e call uocō
ghawōd ind not haud
ghebhlā fem head caput
ghedmr̥ - neu (ghédmenos) excrement excrēmentum
ghedō tr AIb defecate iunificō
gheidhō tr AIa long for aueō
ghoi-ke ghāi-ke
tab this hic haec hoc
ghod-ke
ghéimentos adI wintry hiemālis
gheimr̥ neu (ghéimenos) gheims, cf. ghjems winter hiems
gheimrīnós adII winterly hibernus
gheipō intr AIa sob hippitō
gheislos mas ghweistlo- ? hostage obses
ghelbō intr AIa boast glorior
ghelijō intr growl grunniō
ghelnom neu lip labrum
ghelō intr incise insecō
ghelus fem tortoise testudō
ghelos neu es ghelH3-os/es vegetable olus
ghelis, ghélenos,
gh∂lis, ghl̥ros;
ghelwos mas ghelH3i- ghelH3(i)- green uiridis
wo-, ghelH3-eno-,
ghl̥H3-i-, ghl̥H3-ro-
pass from one
ghēmi intr BIIb gheH1 place to permeō
another
ghenghō intr AIa step uadō
ghēr mas (gherós) hedgehog ēr
gherdhō tr AIa encircle circumdō
gherdos fem pear-tree pirus
gherghros fem pod siliqua
gherijai tr gherH; cf. gh∂rējō desire desiderō
gherō tr lend commodō
ghertom neu butter butyrum
gherús small exiguus
ghesr̥ neu (ghésenos) cf. ghestos hand manus
ghesris fem glove digitābulum
ghestos neu cf. ghēsṛ hand manus
ghētis fem jo arrival aduentus
ghetlā fem handle stīua
gheughō tr AIa veil obumbrō
gheusō tr AIa hear audiō
gheutis fem mould fūtis
427
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
gheutlom neu vase bacārium
ghéwejā fem hollow fouea
ghewos es space spatium
ghi ind certainly certō
ghighējō intr come back redeō
ghirrijō intr whine hirriō
ghjājō inc gape hiō
ghjems mas (ghjmos) gheims; cf. gheimṛ winter hiems
ghlaghos mas crossbeam patibulum
ghlastos adI ghḷ(H)-sto- blue caeruleus
ghlendhō tr AIa study pertractō
ghleumi intr joke nugor
ghloidos mas luxury sumptus
ghlōmi intr BIIc ghlH3; ghlōjō glimmer renideō
ghloumos joke nuga
ghl̥tnós adII golden aureus
ghl̥tom neu ghH3-to gold aurum
ghlustis fem flourishing fluorescentia
ghn̥ dhus mas cancer cancer
ghn̥ dō tr AVIc receive accipiō
ghneumi tr BIIIb caress mulceō
ghōdhos mas honour honos
ghodos mas rump pūga
ghoilos adI joyful alacer
gholwā́ fem cf. ghelus 'testudō' caluum caput bald head
ghordhos mas cf. ghortos enclosure saeptum
ghorejai cau AIIIo cf. gh∂rejō encourage hortor
ghornim ind pleasantly libenter
ghoros mas gherH1; gh∂rus intestine intestīna
gher-, ghres-dhi,
ghórsdejom neu barley hordeum
ghersdh
ghorsejō cau AIIIo erect horreō
ghortos mas cf. ghordhos garden hortus
ghosóm tr (aor. ab edmi) ate ēdī
ghóstipots adII jo guest hospes
ghostis and ej foreigner aduena
ghosdos mas ghostos starvation inedia
ghouros adI terrible terrens
ghowejō tr AIIIo pay attention obseruō
ghradjai dur g(h)rd(h) step gredior
ghrāsmn̥ neu en grass grāmen
ghreH2-so;
ghrāsom neu grass herba
gres/ghres
ghrebh(H2) /
ghr̥ bhjō tr AIa seize captō
ghreibh; ghreibhō
ghrebhō tr AIa bury inhumō
ghrēdhus mas ew ghordhos hunger famēs
ghreimn̥ neu ointment unctiō
ghr̥ ējō sta be empty uacuus sum
ghremō intr AIa grumble fremō
ghrendhā fem cornice corona
ghrendhos neu es ghrōnā́ lock cirrus
428
 Appendix II: Late Indo-European Lexicon
ghrendō intr AIa chrendō, g(w)hrend(h) gnaw frendō
ghrēw ind ghreH1u early mane
ghrewō cau AIa grind conterō
ghrewō eff fall into ingruō
ghrobhos mas content continentia
ghromos mas roaring fremitus
ghronos mas mark signum
ghroudos mas ball pila
ghrowā́ fem pebble calculus
ghərtā fem tip cuspis
ghudjō tr do harm damnō
ghúgheumi tr gheu; ghewō pour fundō
ghundō cau gheu-d pour fundō
ghwerā fem beast fera
ghwērīnós ghwerīnós beastly ferīnus
ghwēr; ghwer;
ghwērós adI wild ferus
ghwerós
ghwobhros mas smith faber
gibbā fem hump gibba
gígisai intr BIIe geis happen accidō
gignō cau genH1 beget gignō
gigrós adI sharp acūtus
gjewō tr AIa chew mandō
gləgjēs fem ice glaciēs
glabhō tr plane ēfodiō
gladhros adI even glaber
glaghā́ fem protest querēla
glaghti neu milk lac
gleghos adI docile infirmus
gleibhō tr AIa adhere adhaerō
gleis mas (glisós) mouse glis
glēkis adI intelligent callidus
glembhō cau AIa include inclūdō
gleubhō tr AIa peel glūbō
glēws mas (gluwós) parcel fascis
glínāmi intr BIVa stick adhaerō
globhos mas globe globus
glōghis fem point cuspis
gloidos mas rubber glūtinum
gloijós adI sticky glutinoosus
gloitn̥ neu gloitnós glue glūten
glokijō intr clack glociō
glomos neu es yarn glomus
glōs fem (glēsos) gH2lōw sister-in-law glōs
glujō tr AIIIu swallow glūtiō
gnabhjō tr AIVb gn∂bhjō gnaw off abrōdo
gnājō tr produce gignō
knH2; cf. kanmā,
gnāmi tr gnaw adrōdō
kn̥ mā, knāmā
gnās m/f (gnājós) offspring prōlēs
gnH1-tó; comp. -
gnātós adII born nātus
gṇtó-; cf. gignō
429
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
gnebhis fem fleece uellus
gnebhō tr AIa pluck uellicō
gneibhō tr AIa raze rādō
gneichō intr AIa lean nītor
gneidō tr AIa scrape abrādō
gnetō tr AIb finger contrectō
gnH1-eH2-sk; gn̥ jai;
gn̥ jai inc be born nāscor
gnāskai
gnṓ menjom neu mark indicium
gnōros adI evident euidens
gnos ad in compositiōne native ingenuus
(gí)gnōskō
tr AVc gneH3 know nōscō
(gnōwa)
gnōsmi tr BIe gnēsmi recognize agnoscō
gnōtis fem knowledge nōtiō
gnōtlom neu sign signum
gnōtṓ r mas knower nōtor
gnōtós adI gnH3tó- known nōtus
gnoubhos mas bud geniculum
gnōwos adI wise nāuus
golā fem cf. goulos ball globus
golbhnos mas dart acūmen
gōgā fem cf. gugā biscuit buccellātum
gombhos mas cf. gembhō jaws dentes
gomos mas load onus
gonējō tr gonH1-eio/e- produce generō
gopos mas jaws fauces
gorbos mas wrinkle rūga
gorgnóm neu sadness tristitia
gorgós adI sad tristis
goulos mas jar matula
gouros mas crimpy hair turbidō
gówijā fem gouH2-i? lapwing uanellus
grakijō intr cackle gracillō
grammā fem rheum grāmiae
grānóm neu grH2-no- grain grānum
gr̥ beinos fem (s)karp ? hornbeam carpinus betulus
gr̥ bējō sta have wrinkle rugātus sum
gr̥ bhō tr AVIII scratch charaxō
grebhos mas net rēte
gredō tr AIa scratch scabō
gregs mas (grēcos) H2greg- herd grex
grejos neu es level surface aequōr
gremjom neu lap gremium
grendjom crown corōna
gretlom cradle cūnae
greubhō dur AIa go aside mē āuertō
greugō intr AIa bend curuō
greumō tr AIa scrape off abrādō
greutō intr AIa solidify solidificō
grn̥ dhís adI grown grandis

430
 Appendix II: Late Indo-European Lexicon
H2ger; gercō, gerjō,
gr̥ neumi tr BIVb, AIa gather cogō
g∂rjō
grōbhos fem oak tree quercus suber
grōdis mas grōdos hail grandō
gromos mas grōmos group congregātiō
groumos mas crumb grūmus
grundijō intr grunt grunniō
grutis fem curd cheese lac passum
gudom bowels intestīnum
gugā fem cf. gōgā ball pila
gupā fem cellar pitheūs
gurnos mas back dorsum
gusnō tr taste gustō
gutr̥ mas (gútenos) throat guttur
idhei ind there ibī
ikjō tr H2yk reach ic(i)ō
ili neu (ílijos) groin intestīnum
AVIII
H1lH2 redupl.
īljō tr (lām-loja- send away amandō
H1i-H1lH3
leisō)
imde ind from there inde
more than
immō adII immō
that
ı̄́nekmi tr BIIe H1nk convey apportō
bring
íneumi tr BIVb Hei-neu- aerumnas obiciō
disgrace upon
ipjō oppress opprimō
is, id pron tab this is, ea, id
īsarnom neu iron ferrum
ita ind itH so ita
itājō freq journey itō
itaqe ind and also itaque
íteros adII different differens
itim ind likewise item
(itenos/H1itén
itr̥ neu itr̥ , eitr̥ way iter
s)
iwe ind H1iwe like ceu
jəkējō sta lie down iaceō
jəkjō tr eject iaciō
jagjō tr jH2g-jo/e worship uenerō
jāgjus adI jeH2g-ju- pious pius
jāi ind yes certō
jālos mas conspiracy coniurātiō
jālós adI vane uānus
jāmi intr yH2 pass transeō
jāmi ind already iam
ieH2;
jáneumi tr BIVb conspire coniurō
iH2neumi
jā́ nuwā fem entrance iānua
jebhō intr Aib H2i̯ebh fuck futtuō
jeghō tr persecute persequor
jegis mas ej ice glaciēs
431
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
jekō tr AIb tell narrō
jekos adI healthy sānus
jēlom neu desert desertum
(jí)jēmi cau BIIb jeH1 expel expellō
jemō tr hold (to) contineō
jemós neu twin geminus
frāter patruēlis/
jentēr mas (jentrós) cousin
amitinus
jeqr̥ neu (-óneros) liver iecur
jesō intr. AIb HHi2es- ferment fermentō
jeunis fem right way uia recta
jeugō intr cf. jugājō be violent ferociō
jeus neu (jusós) broth ius
jewesdiks adII jo judge iudex
jewō intr AIa help adiuuō
jewom neu barley hordeum
jéwornjom fem cereal cereāle
jéwestos adI just iūstus
jewos neu (jéwesos) law iūs
jn̥ dros adI exuberant laetus
jn̥ tō tr AVIa desire eagerly aueō
jod qid ind because quia
jodhei rel where (rel.) ūbī
joinkos mas bulrush iuncus
jom rel when cum
jomde rel from which unde
joqe ind and et
jori rel wherefore quapropter
jorkos mas roebuck gazella
jōrom neu yeHro- season tempus
jōrós mas conspirator conspirātor
that, the one
jos (je), jā, jod rel tab is quis
that
jṓsneumi tr BIVb HieHw3-s begird cingō (to)
jos qis, jā, qis, jod
pron whoever quiscumque
qid
jota rel how quōmodo
jota sei ind alike quasi
joudhejō cau AIIIo stir up commoueō
beast of
jóugsmn̥ tom mas iūmentum
burden
jucis adII H2yu-gwiH3 eternal iūgis
jugājō tr cf. jeugō subjugate subiugō
jugóm neu yoke iugum
jungō tr ieHw3-g join iungō
jusmé pron nom. acc. you uōs
júwenis adII young iuuenis
juwes / juwe pron tab you uōs
juwn̥ kós adII H2iw-wH1ṇkó- young iuuenis
júwn̥ tā fem youth iuuentus
(júwenos);
juwōn adI H2iw-wHen-- young iuuenis
sup. jéwistH2o-
432
 Appendix II: Late Indo-European Lexicon
klH1; kelmi / klenti
kəlejō tr AIIIo name nōminō
<*kelH1mi / kH1lenti
kəlējō sta AIIIe klH1-eH1- be hot caleō
kəletos kl̥Heto-; cf. kaldos hardened callōsus
kənjós adI cf. kenō recent recens
kəpjō tr kHp catch capiō
kəpsā fem box capsa
kəptos captive captus
kəsējō sta lack careō
kəstos adI pure castus
kətos adI H3Hi2kH3-to- sharp catus
ka ind kem; cf. kom certainly sīc
kábn̥ los mas colt equulus
kabōn mas (kábonos) horse equus
kadhō tr keep praeseruō
kadō prog fall cadō
kādos neu es trouble cūra
kadros adII saint sanctus
kaghlā fem opening caula
kaghos mas enclosure claustrum
kaidō cau cut caedō
kaikos adI blind caecus
kailom neu augur augurium
kaipā fem onion caepa
kairós adI untouched integer
káisr̥ jēs fem long hair caesariēs
kaisrom neu hair capillum
kaitom neu heath silua
káiwelos neu exclusive exclusōrius
kákabā fem partridge perdix
kakkājō intr defecate cacō
kaklājō intr cackle cacillō
kákneumi tr BIVb promote foueō
kakō cau thinnen tenuefaciō
kakú ds fem (kakudós) summit cacūmen
be
kaldējō sta calleō
experienced
kaldos mas kH2l blister callus
mas/ (kalikós,
kalēiks kalīks cup calix
fem kalijós)
kalgōn (kálgenos) fog cālīgo
kālis fem spot macula
kaljós adI gorgeous uenustus
kalkis fem heel calx
kalwos adI kḷHwos bald caluus
kambos adI bent tortus
kāmi tr love amō
kamō tr kH2m press tightly comprimō
kampos mas land campus
kánāmi tr BIIIa dig fodiō
kandō tr glow candō
kánkestos mas colt equulus
433
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
kankus mas kanku /kākā branch ramulus
knH2; kṇH2mā,
kanmā fem knāmā, knH2mi-; cf. leg crus
gnāmi
kanmn̥ neu (kánmenos) song carmen
kanō intr sing canō
kambtos?; cf.
kantos mas wheelrim cantus
witus
kaplos mas cf. skāpos tool instrumentum
kāpos mas land estate fundus
kaprā fem goat capra
kapros goat caper
kaput neu (kaputós) head caput
kareinā fem Har- keel carīna
karkar mas (karkarós) fortification mūnītūra
kárkarjō announce nuntiō
karkros crab cancer
karnājō tr AIIIa pin down carinō
karōn fem en limb membrum
kāros adI beloved cārus
karpō tr collect carpō
kárrēkā fem rock rūpēs
kartús adI comp. kretjós- kar, kr̥ -; kartus; kr̥ tus hard dūrus
kasnos mas grey cānus
kasterlom neu castle castellum
kastra neu (kastrōm) camp castra
kastrājō tr prune (to) castrō
kastrom neu scissors forfex
katēsna fem chain catēna
katsājai intr meet congredior
katsājō tr gather cōgō
kattā fem cat fēlēs
katus mas kH2etu- fight pugna
kaukos mas vessel collectāculum
kaulis fem cabbage caulis
kaunós adI shameful pudendus
kawdō tr AIIa keH2w-d hit cūdō
kawō tr AIIb keH2w hit cūdō
káwonā fem owl noctua
ko kā kod (eko
pron this hic hae hoc
ekā ekod)
ke ind ki of here hic
kei ind here hic
keidō intr AIa go down descendō
keimēx mas bug cīmex
keimoi inc lie iaceō
keimos neu kéimesos colorant colorans
keiros adI dark obscūrus
kéiwijos adII civil cīuīlis
keiwis and ej keiwos citizen cīuis
kekājō tr bind nectō

434
 Appendix II: Late Indo-European Lexicon
(kekātrikós,
kekātrīks fem scar cicatrix
kekātrijós)
(s)kH1/2ek,
kekō intr (s)keH1/2k; cf. leap saltō
skekō
kékuros adI tame cicur
kēlā fem chamber cella
kēlājō cau desid. kikl̥H1s-e/o hide cēlō
keldō tr kelH2-d- strike percellō
kelgā fem mystery mysterium
kéliknom neu penthouse cēnaculum
kelmos mas helmet galea
kelō tr kelH1; kl̥nō push impellō
kélodhros mas snake coluber
kēlom neu arrow sagitta
kelos neu es cover coopertūra
kelots mas (kéletos) boy ephebus
kelsō intr AIa kelH3, kl̥neH3- be high excellō
kelujō intr travel iter facere
kelus fem road uia
kémelom neu sky caelum
kémeros fem lotus lotus
(kí)kōmi tr BIIc H3Hi2keH3 sharpen exacuō
kemjō tr hum cantillō
kemō intr AIb strain adnītor
kemos adII hornless incornis
kenēs fem (kensós) *kon(H)I- /*ken(H)i- ash cinis
kenkai intr hesitate uacillō
kenklom tendon tendō
kenkō inc AIa weigh pendō
kenkos mas hook hamus
kenō intr kṇjō; cf. kn̥ jós arise oborior
kentom mas rag pannus
kentrom neu prick centrum
kepō tr do harm infensō
keqō tr AIa dirty mancillō
kerəsrom neu kerH2-s-ro- brain cerebrum
kérberos mas weasel mustela
kerdhjos mas herdsman pāstor
kerdhō tr AIa range (to) ordinō
kerdhos mas group grex
kerdos neu es profession ars
kerkō inc AIa grow thin tenuescō
kerkos fem hen gallīna
kernos mas excavator pāla
kernós mas frozen snow nix gelāta
kerom neu hair caesariēs
keros neu es kerH1/3os- millet milium
kersis adI rudis harsh
kersnā fem dinner cēna
kersō tr AIa mutilate mutilō

435
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
kersṛ , kersṇ,
kersr̥ neu (kersenós) head caput
kerH1os
kerwos mas kerH2wo- deer ceruus
kesdō intr withraw cēdō
kēsmi tr ke(k)Hs-mi restrain reprimō
kesnus mas garlic ālius
kesō tr comb pectō
kētjā fem room cubiculum
keubō cau AIa curve curuō
keudhō AIa hide abdī
keukō dur cf. kakú ds warp inflectō
keulom neu swelling turgentia
keusō tr keusH rent locō
kēwējō intr keH1w- sway oscillō
khákhatnos mas laugh cachinnus
khamos mas hook hāmus
khéderos fem ivy hedera
kighrós mas agitated agitātus
kikēr mas (kikrós) pea cicer
become
kı̄́keumi intr BIIIb uigescō
vigorous
kikjā fem woodpecker pīca
kiklēskō tr (kiklēwa) invoke inuocō
kiklós adI kelH; cf. geldhós cold frīgidus
kíkōnjā fem stork ciconia
kīkus mas (kī´kewos) muscle mūsculus
kina ind from this side hinc
kingō tr gird cingō
kintos adII previous praecēdens
kippos mas peg cippus
kirknos mas compasses circinus
kirkos mas circle circus
kiskā fem biceps biceps
kistā fem basket cista
kíteros adI of this side citer
kitōd ind immediately citō
towards this
kitrōd ind citrō
side
kiwos mas colour colōr
kjājō tr kieH2 assort diribeō
kjējō cau activate ciō
klādis mas cf. kl̥dos damage clādēs
kladjos mas sword gladius
klagjō intr clang clangō
klāmājō intr yell clamō
klambós adI mutilated mutilus
klāmi tr embank aggerō
klamrós adI klmH2-ro weak dēbilis
klāros mas tablet tabella
klārós adI klH1-ró loud resonus
klāstis fem klH1-dhH1-ti convocation conuocātiō
klaudos adI lame claudus
436
 Appendix II: Late Indo-European Lexicon
klawdō tr close claudō
klawos mas nail clāuus
klāws fem (klāwós) key clāuis
klawstós adI closed clausus
mountain-
kl̥dis fem k∂lnis?; cf. k∂ldos callis
path
kl̥dos mas cf. klādis wood lignum
kleinos fem maple acer
kleitis fem hut casa
kleitrom neu support firmāmentum
klengō tr AIa bend plicō
klepō tr AIa steal clepō
kleumi neu kluH listen audiō
kleumn̥ neu hearing audītus
kléumn̥ tom neu reputation reputātiō
kleusō tr AIa obey oboediō
kleustis fem klustís obedience oboedientia
kleutis fem jo quoque klutis listening audientia
kleutō tr AIa raffle sortior
kleutrom neu story historia
klewō tr AIa wash purgō
klewos neu es glory gloria
klínāmi cau aor. kleim kli-H2; klinjō cause to slope clinō
klisrós adI gentle gentilis
kl̥jō tr (s)kel divide diuidō
kl̥neumi tr BIVb* kleuH <*kḷ-ne-uHmi hear audiō
kln̥ gō intr AIIc klH1-g sound clangō
kloiwos adI kloinos steep clīuus
klopnis fem jo valley uallis
klounis fem jo buttock clūnis
kl̥pros mas wine-cask cupa
kl̥tos adI hot calidus
klūtós adI kluH-tó famous audītus
kluwējō sta be named clueō
kl̥wijō tr defame difāmō
kmāmi prog kmH2 get tired dēfetiscor
km̥bhis adI kṃbhnós small paruus
km̥ertos mas lobster langusta
km̥ros curved camur
km̥ti dh°r cf. kom with cum
km̥témtəmos adII hundredth centesimus
km̥tom num hundred centum
knakos adI knH2-ko yellow glaesus
combustiōnem
kn̥ kējō cau AIIIo cau. konkejō feel burnt
sentīre
knokos mas neck ceruix
knouks fem (kneukos) nut nux
kn̥ sējō tr opinate censeō
kn̥ stṓr mas kenstṓ r spokesman orātor
knuwā fem walnut nux
kobom neu success euentus
kodējō tr thurify turificō
437
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
koilús adI koilus healthy sānus
kóilutāts fem jo health ualētūdō
koimā fem agreement pacta
koimos adI lovely cārus
koinos mas foenum hay
koinós adII koi(H)-no akin cognātus
koisā fem occupation cūra
koitús mas (koitewós) manner modus
koksā fem kokso- hip coxa
(koksednikós,
koksednīks fem -edniH2 hip bone coxendīx
koksedniyós)
kolignos mas dog canis
koljō tr stick adhaerō
kólkolos mas bell campana
kolmn̥ neu en summit culmen
kolmos mas kolH2-mo- stalk calamus
kolH-ni-, kḷH-ni-,
kolnis fem ej hill collis
kolH-wi, kolH-wo
kolnom neu pile sublīca
kolnos adII one-eyed unioculis
nōn qolsos quoniam
kolsos mas neck collum
gmc. nōn *hw incipit
kólumbhos mas dove columba
kom ind cf. kṃti; cf. ka with cum
kómāglom neu kómagdhlom collection collectiō
kómjougos mas union coniunctiō
komjugs epi komjugós consort coniux
kómmoinis adII common commūnis
kommoinitā́ ts fem jo community commūnitas
komnom neu meeting congregātiō
kómnōmn̥ neu surname cognōmen
kómopjom neu equipment armāmenta
kōmos mas mass globus
kómplēnos adII complete complētus
kómsqr̥ tos adI perfect perfectus
kómtl̥tis fem patience patientia
komtrōd ind against contrā
kómwoirjom neu court curia
kómwoistis fem conscience conscientia
kōnājai inc try cōnōr
konkhā fem shell concha
kōnos mas H3Hi2k-eH3-no- top turbēn
kopos mas kopHo- hoof ungula
kopnos mas haven portus
kóqros mas dirt immunditia
korbhis mas (kórbhejos) basket corbis
koris fem acarian acarus
korjom neu leather corium
korjos neu army exercitus
korkos adI mud caenum
kormnos mas bleach aqua lixiuiae

438
 Appendix II: Late Indo-European Lexicon
mustēla
kormōn mas (kórmenos) ermine
erminea
kormos mas pain dolor
(kornikós,
kornīks fem crow cornīx
kornijós)
kornos fem cherry tree cornus
korudhs fem (kórudhos) cf. kr̥ nu helmet cassis
kṓrukos mas bag saccus
korwos adI korw-, korweH2 raven raucus
kósolos fem hazel corilus
kostā fem H3osteH2 rib costa
koubos mas joint artus
koupā fem kūpā cup cūpa
koupnom, koupā,
koupnā fem lot cōpia
koupos
koutā fem cf. kotos hut mapālia
kowejō tr AIIIo cf. skewō beware caueō
kowis epi magician magus
kowos adI hollow cauus
kowr̥ neu (kówenos) kuH2-r cavern cauerna
krāmi tr Bib / BIVa krH2 / kṛneH2 mix permisceō
krāsi ind cf. ausrom tomorrow cras
krāsrōn mas en bumblebee crābrō
krātis fem ej krH2tis network crātis
kratsos plump crassus
kr̥ dḗn kṛdnos hinge cardō
kr̥ dhōn mas (kṛdhenós) carbon carbō
(kṛdejós /
kr̥ di / kr̥ djom neu heart cor
kṛdjī)
kr̥ dijai prog get angry stomachor
kr̥ djō intr krH-d rock trepidō
kr̥ stus fem shirt camisia
kréddhēmi tr krd + dhH1/dhH3 believe crēdō
kreidhrom neu sieve crībrum
kreimn̥ neu crime crīmen
kreitsō intr AIa shake agitor
krekō AIa weave texō
kremājō cau burn cremō
kerH1; cf. krēskō;
krēmi tr create creō
kerH3 uescor?
kremom neu beer ceruisia
krémusom neu onion caepa
krenghos mas ring anus
krenktis fem scar cicātrix
krépāmi intr crackle crepō
krepō intr AIa precipitate praecipitor
krepús adI strong fortis
krēqā fem krīqā ? cf. krinō border limēs
krēskō prog kr̥ H1ske/o-; cf. krēmi grow crēscō
krētā fem chalk crēta
kretō tr AIa cut exsecō
kreugō intr AIa cry gemō
439
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
kreuks fem (krukós) cross crux
kreumi tr kru-H stock dēpositō
kreupō inc AIa get encrusted incrustor
kreutō tr AIa agitate permoueō
krēwō tr AIIf afflict adflīgō
kr(e)uH2-; krew(o)s-
krēws neu (kruwós) blood cruor
, kruwós-
krigā fem cry clamor
krinō tr kre(H1)i sieve crinō
kripsnis fem jo mane crīnis
kripsos adI curly crispus
kripstā fem crest crista
kristājō cau shuttle agitō
kritis fem difference differentia
kritós adI different distinctus
kr̥ jēs fem rot cariēs
kr̥ klos adI slender gracilis
kr̥ nāmi tr krH1 rot corrumpō
kr̥ nos adI rotten corruptus
kr̥ nu neu kṛnewós horn cornū
krōbhtus mas devotion dēuotiō
krokijō intr shriek crociō
kroknos mas anorak peplum
krosnos mas jet saliens
krotjājō tr shake agitō
krous neu (kreusos) leg crūs
krowos mas shelter refugium
kr̥ pjos mas krH2pjo-; krāpjo- shoe calceus
kr̥ pos neu es kwṛpos ? body corpus
kr̥ sējō sta be scratched carreō
kr̥ snos black āter
kr̥ sō tr AIIh run currō
kr̥ stus mas course cursus
kr̥ sus mas cart currus
krustā fem icicle crustula
krūtis fem krūtís dome cupula
kr̥ wos adI curved curuus
ksentis fem cf. ksnujō briar sentis
kserós adI ksērós dry siccus
ksuwō, ksujō, ksējō,
ksnujō tr ks∂njō, ksnowājō, shave abrādō
ksnutējō
ksnowātlā fem razor nouācula
ksūlom fem post columna
kúbāmi sta lie cubō
kudājō intr reprove orbiurgō
kukulājō intr cuckoo cucu facere
kukūlós mas cuckoo cucūlus
kūlā fem hiding place latebra
kūleks mas (kūlkós) gnat cūlex
kūlos mas ass cūlus
kumbhā fem pot catīnus
440
 Appendix II: Late Indo-European Lexicon
kumbō intr recline accumbō
kūmós mas kuH1-mo heap cumulus
kúnejos mas wedge cuneus
kupjō tr demand exigō
kurnos mas foal pulllus
kusdhos mas treasure thesaurus
kusis mas kiss basium
kusjom neu kūsjom cavity cauea
kūtis fem ej kHuti-; kūtís skin cutis
kúwanos mas kūnos lapis lazuli lapis lazuli
kuwējō sta be pregnant grauidus sum
kuwos mas whelp catulus
kúwr̥ os adI powerful potens
kwāimi tr acquire acquīro
kwatsos mas cheese caseus
kweidos mas white candidus
kwentos adII skwentos holy sacer
kwōn mas (kwnos) dog canis
ləbjom neu lip labrum
ləkesājō cau tear lacerō
ləkjō trap laciō
ləkós mas tearing lacerātiō
lənchijóm neu lung pulmō
ləpējō sta be flat plānus sum
ləpods mas (l∂pedós) stone lapis
ləskējō sta lH2sk- fancy lascīuiō
ləsnis adI lH2s-nis lustful lascīuus
lətējō sta be concealed lateō
labhō tr take emō
laghā fem spade pāla
lāgō intr AIIe (s)leH2g; cf. lṇgwō droop ēlanguescō
laiwós adII left laeuus
lājō tr scold obiurgō
lajos neu es fat adeps
lakertos mas forearm lacertus
lakus mas ew lake lacus
lalājo intr babble blaterō
lalu ind penis pēnis
lāmā fem poodle lāma
lā́ mn̥ tom neu tell off obiurgātiō
landhom neu frypan sartagō
lāōs mas (lā́ esos) home god lār
lāpos mas cow bōs
lapsā fem lamp lampās
latēks mas latkos liquid latex
latom mas day dies
lāurā fem stonework opus saxeum
lawō tr leH2u; abl. benefit fruor
lāwós mas leH2wó- team squadra
lawrós adI l∂wHros profitable lucrifĭcābilis
lawtlom neu benefit lucrum

441
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
ledō tr lH1d release āmittō
leghjai inc. lie accumbō
leghō sta lie occubō
leghos neu es lay fulcrum
leghskā fem settlement sēdēs
leghskós adI lazy pīger
leghtrom mas support destina
leghús adI cf. l∂nghros; leghus light leuis
légneumi tr BIVb wring out ēguttō
legō tr collect legō
legs fem (lēgos) law lēx
leibs mas (libós) drop gutta
leidmi tr permit (to) permittō
leiglā fem leigdhlā spoon ligula
leigō intr AIa H1lei-g jump saliō
leiljom neu lily liilium
leinō tr AIa avoid uitō
leinom neu flax līnum
leipā fem lime-tree tilia
leisā fem track līra
leitō intr AIa go eō
leitos neu léitesos seaside litus
lembō tr AIa hang suspendō
lēmi tr BIc leH1 grant indulgeō
lemō tr H3lem break up abrumpō
lemsos mas phantom phasma
lendhā fem spring fons
lēnis weak lēnis
lentos fem juniper picea
lepō intr stutter balbutiō
lenghmi BIe declare dēclārō
lergos adI flat plānus
lēsanks fem (lēsankós) lēwanks ? slate ardesia
lesō tr pick carpō
lestrom neu vessel vās
leswos adI middling sublestus
lētis fem concession indulgentia
CELT. *pletro- ?, cf.
letrom neu leather corium
lat. pellis
leubhos adI dear cārus
léudheros adI H1leudh free liber
leughō intr AIa lie mentior
leukō intr shine (to) luceō
leukós adI bright lucens
leuks fem (lukós) light lux
leuksmn̥ neu en light lūmen
lēumi tr BIg leH1u damage afflictō
leups mas (lupós) leaf folium
lewis mas sickle falcula
ligājō tr bind ligō
ligos adI H3ligo- scarce rarus

442
 Appendix II: Late Indo-European Lexicon
likējō tr be available praestō sum
limpō sta stick haereō
linghō tr lick lingō
līnō tr liH; lināmi oint linō
līnós adI ointed litus
linqō tr leave linquō
lipējō sta be sticked adhaereō
lippā fem rheum lippa
liprós adI lipH2ró greasy adipōsus
litājō appease litō
litwos mas rod lituus
lm̥bō tr sip lambō
(s)leH2g; ln̥ gō; cf.
ln̥ cō cau AVIc tire fatigō
lāgō
ln̥ ghros adI cf. leghús light leuis
lōbā fem crime dēlictus
lodi neu late tarde
loghejō cau lay down dēpōnō
loghjom neu site situs
loghos mas deposit dēpositus
loigos mas calf uitulus
loigós mas H3loigo-; cf. ligos penury lack
loimos mas (s)H2loimo-; sloimos mud līmus
loiqnom neu loiqnos (es-) lend commodātus
loiqós adII remaining reliquus
loisā fem tablet līra
loisós adI mild mitis
loksos mas lax salmō
loksós adI slanting obliquus
loktos mas loktus fault culpa
londhom neu land regiō
londhwos mas hip lumbus
longhros mas worm lombrīcus
lordós adI twisted tortus
lorgā fem footprint uestigium
lorgos mas club uirga
lostos mas spear hasta
loubhis ind or uel
loudis mas ej praise laus
loughjom neu oath sacramentum
lougos mas twig rāmulus
loukejō cau AIIIo illuminate ilūminō
loukētjos adI radiant splendidus
loukos mas glade saltus
loukós mas radiance splendor
louksā fem window fenestra
louksnā fem moon lūna
louksos mas lynx lynx
lousēn fem (lusnós) louse pedis
loutsā fem whore merētrix
lowā fem hair coma

443
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
lowō tr lH3w wash lauō
lowtrom neu bath lābrum
l̥tejō tr AIIIo H2ltoi-, H2lti- invite inuītō
lubhējō tr like libet (mihi)
lubhjā fem herb herba
lubhros mas bast liber
ludhóm intr (aor. a cemjō) came uēnī
lugējō sta be broken fractus sum
lugjā fem hole ōrificium
lugnós adI flexible flexibilis
lugtos mas multitude cōpiae
lukējō sta shine luceō
lukskējō tr light up incendō
lúnāmi tr leH2; leH2u- split rumpō
lūnós adI lūtós unbound solūtus
lutom neu l(H)u-to- dirt lutum
lūtós adI unbound solūtus
luwō (lewō) tr lewH unbind luō
luwō apó tr acquit absoluō
mədējō sta be wet madeō
məgjos adI big magnus
məglos adI noble nōbilis
magnanimou
məgnánəmos adI magnanimus
s
mH1-gH2 / mH1-g-nó
cf. məgjṓ s; sup.
məgnos adI / mH1-g-ló / mH1-g- big magnus
mégistH2o-
jó
məgis ind cf. mājis more magis
məgistā́ fem məgistjom greatness maiestās
məgtājō tr cf. məgnos honour mactō
məljos adI false falsus
mənējō sta remain maneō
mənijai omc tower ēmineō
mənjō sta mnH2; m∂njai think cōgitō
mərējō sta deserve mereō
mərijai intr die morior
mərjos mas pubescent pūbes
machos mas maghu-, moghu? youngster iuuenis
machotis fem youth iuuentūs
mághneumi tr BIVb defend dēfendō
maghos mas field pratum
magō tr mH2g form configurō
mājis adv cf. məgis more magis
mājō prog prosper mātūrō
mākājō cau make slim maciō
makēn mas (maknós) pouch crumēna
mākesjā wall mūrus
mā́ kōn mas mā́ kenos poppy papauer
makrós adI slender macer
mammā fem mum mamma
mān ind meH2n so etenim
mānājō intr spring mānō
444
 Appendix II: Late Indo-European Lexicon
mánnusos mas man homō
mānos adI good bonus
maqā fem girl puella
maqos mas boy ephebus
máreskos mas marsh mariscus
margōn mas margenós boundary margō
mari neu ej mori? sea mare
markos mas horse equus
masdos neu mast mālus
mātejō tr designate dēsignō
mātḗr fem (mātrós) meH2-ter- mother māter
māterós mas dmāterós? solid solidus
mātérterā fem aunt mātertera
matlā fem hammer malleus
mauros adI gloomy fuscus
m̥bhros mas cf. nebhos storm imber
m̥bhu neu cf. nebhos water aqua
m̥dhros adI blue caeruleus
m̥gadhós adI ṃgH2-dhH1o- magnificent magnificus
me pron H1me; aton. me mē
mē ind not nē
medai intr mH1d; cōgit. ponder medeor
medgós mas gull mergus
médhidjōws mas midday meridiēs
medhjos adII middle medius
medhu neu ew mead mel
medjom neu acorn glans
médneumi tr BIVb meH1d / mH1d administrate administrō
médodiks epic med- / mēd- cf. regs doctor medicus
mēdos neu valuation aestimātiō
meicō intr AIa H1mei-gw; -gw rārus move mutō
meidō tr AIa mei /meit /meid scrath out desculpō
meidos neu prestige auctoritās
meilēts mas (meiltós) warrior milēs
meinom neu purpose propositiō
meitō sta AIa lack dēsum
meitrom neu mitros agreement contractus
meiwijṓ s adI smaller minor
mejājō intr mínāmi flow meō
H2mei; uox media
mejō tr AIa change mūtō
intr.
mejtis fem jo quoque mjtis shift permutātiō
mēknos mas lip labrum
meldhjā thunderbolt fulmen
meldhō intr pray precor
mēlis fem ej badger mēlēs
melit neu mélitos honey mel
meljom neu millet milium
melkō tr AIa rub mulceō
melmn̥ neu article articulus
melō tr AIb melH2 grind molō

445
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
mēlom neu meH1-lo- moment mōmentum
melos adI strong robustus
melsō tr AIa cf. m∂ljos deceive mentior
melujō tr crush conterō
melwom neu flour farīna
membhō tr AIa punish puniō
mēmi tr measure metior
mēmsóm neu memsóm meat carō
mendhai intr cogit. be interested interest
mendhō tr AIa stir uersō
mendō tr suck sūgō
mendom neu fault mendum
menghos adI frequent frequens
mengō tr AIa disguise uestiō
menis mas dace phoxinus
menkō intr lack desum
menmn̥ neu en intellect intellectus
menos neu es sense sensus
meH1ns-, mH1nt-;
mēnsis mas ej nom. rad. meH1nōs month mēnsis
gen. m(e)H1nsés
mentā fem rod uirga
mercō tr AIa make black nigrō
mergā fem fork furca
merghā fem snare laqueus
mergis fem filth situs
mergō cau AIa merg/mezg sink mergō
merkēds fem (merk∂dós) charge naulus
merkō cf. bherkō flimmer fulgeō
mérneumi tr BIVb worry turbō
meros adI merHo- simple merus
mersō tr mr̥ snāmi neglect neglegō
merwos insipid insipidus
mesgō tr AIa communicate communicō
meslā fem blackbird merula
mestis fem memstis ? measure mensūra
mestós adII memstós? measured mensus
mētā fem post mēta
meti ind in the middle in mediā parte
mētijai tr measure mētior
mētis fem meH1-ti- dimension dīmensiō
metō tr AIb reap metō
mētrom 2º
metrom neu measure mensūra
comp.
meudos adI proud superbus
meugō intr AIa cheat dēlūdō
meukō tr AIa scratch ērōdō
meus / muskós neu (mūsós) muscle mūs
mgānts adI mg(e)H2(e)nt- great ingens
mighlā fem mist uapor
míkāmi dur flimmer micō
mikskejō cau AIIIo meik/meik-sk- mix misceō
446
 Appendix II: Late Indo-European Lexicon
miljom neu red ochre minium
mimdō inc meet accurrō
mímnāskō
intr AVc cogit. remember memini
(memna)
míneumi cau BIVb eff. mínāmi reduce minuō
minghō intr H3meigh-; mighjō piss mingō
mínusi ind less minus
misdhóm neu salary sālārium
misgā fem miks- whey sērum lactis
meitH2; uox media
mítnāmi tr BIVa exchange permūtū
intr.
mlājō cau weaken dēbilitō
mlākós adI ml-H2-kó stupid stultus
mlātóm neu mlH2-tó flour farīna
ml̥dhos adI ml(H2)-dh- permissive permissīiuus
ml̥dsnos adI softened ēmollītus
ml̥dus adI ml-du; tab soft mollis
ml̥duwijō tr soften molliō
mleumi tr BIIIb mleuH speak loquor
ml̥gājō tr anounce nuntiō
mlīnós adI slack ēneruis
ml̥kāmi intr BIIIa weaken ēlanguescō
ml̥nos adI melH2-; mḷnejós dark mulleus
ml̥sjō tr taste dēgustō
mlōdhrós adI lofty excelsus
mlōskō intr mlH3 appear appareō
ml̥qjō tr cf. mr̥ kjō afflict afflictō
ml̥sos mas slow lentus
ml̥wā fem mḷH-weH2 mallow-plant malua
mnājō tr bear in mind in mente habeō
mn̥ dōmi tr commit mandō
mn̥ kos adI cf. m∂nwos defective mancus
mn̥ kstrom neu shaker mixtarium
mn̥ sjai neu intend intendō
mn̥ tijai tr put on mentior
mn̥ tis fem jo mentis mind mens
mn̥ tō tr mH2t; mtH2 chew mandō
mn̥ tom neu chin mentum
mn̥ tos mas mention mentiō
mn̥ trājō tr wipe abrādō
mn̥ us fem (m∂newós) hand manus
mn̥ wos adI cf. m∂nkos scant insignificans
mō ind but sed
mōdos mas moH3do- perseverance constantia
modos neu es measure modus
moghjos adI pleasant amoenus
moghō tr AIId mH3gh can possum
moghtis fem jo might potestās
moghtrom neu means remedium
moighos mas pee uriina
moilos adI miH1- mild comēs
moinijai tr fortify mūniō
447
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
moinis adI obliged mūnis
moinja neu walls moenia
moisós mas sheep skin pellis ouīna
moitājō tr exchange mūtō
moitmos mas méitimos thanks grātes
moitos mas exchange permūtātiū
moitwos adII mutual mutuus
mojnos mas exchange commūtātiō
mogsū́ ind mogsí, moksí soon mox
molā fem molH1(e)H2 millstone mola
moljā fem coast lītus
moldhā fem occipital occipitium
moldhos mas prayer prex
moleinā fem mill molīna
mōlestos adI annoying mōlestus
molgējō tr milk mulgeō
mōlis fem ej mass mōlēs
mōlos neu es effort mōlimen
molpā́ fem pride superbia
molqos adI wet madidus
moltlom neu molH-tlo/-to/-lo hammer malleus
mondō tr adorn ornō
mondós mas whelp cattulus
monejō cau AIIIo warn moneō
mongos fem neck collus
monīli neu monH- collar monīle
monos mas neck ceruix
montis mas ej hill mons
morā fem delay mora
somnus
morā fem nightmare
terrorificus
morcós dark obscūrus
mordējō tr bite mordeō
morignā fem woman mulier
morjods mas ed thigh poples
mórmoros mas panic horror
morom neu berry mōrum
moros fem cf. mṛtis fatality infortūnium
mōros /mēros cf.
mōros adI renowned nōbilis
yōrom /yērom
mōrós adI stupid mōrus
mōs mas (mosós) character ingenium
mosgom neu cerebellum cerebellum
mosgos mas relation uinculum
moukos mas mucus mūcus
mouros mas mounos slop illuuiēs
mousos fem weed alga
m(i)euH1/m(i)eH1u;
mowejō cau AIIIo move moueō
cf. Muujoo?
mreghmós mas skull caluaria
mr̥ ghús mas short breuis
mr̥ gneumi tr BIVb H3merg; mr̥ negmi wipe tergō
448
 Appendix II: Late Indo-European Lexicon
mr̥ kā carrot carota
mr̥ kējō sta AIIIe H2mr-k be withered marceō
cf. mr̥ kos; cau.
mr̥ kjō tr ill-treat afflictō
morkejō; cf. ml̥qjō
mr̥ kos adI cf. morkejō disabled murcus
mr̥ ktos adI cf. bhṛktos speckled uarius
mr̥ meikā fem ant formīca
mr̥ mrājō murmur murmurō
mr̥ namói tr -nH2moi plunder exspoliō
mr̥ tājō tr crush conterō
mr̥ tāsjom neu mortar mortārium
mr̥ tis fem jo cf.moros death mors
mr̥ tos adII dead mortuus
mr̥ wos adII dead mortuus
mūdlom neu detergent dētersīuum
mūdnós clean mundus
mudstos mas must mustus
mūgijō intr moo mugiō
H2meuH; cf.
mūjō intr fall cadō
mowejō?
munkō tr AVIa let out dīmittō
mūris mas abundance cōpia
mūs neu (mūsós) muH-s-; mews mouse mūs
muskā fem fly musca
muskos mas moss muscus
meuH; muneH2/3-mi;
músnāmi tr BIVa secrete abdō
meuH2/3-s-
mūstrom neu weasel mustēla
mūtos mas *muH1/3 penis pēnis
mūtrom neu mud lutum
muttijō sta mutter muttiō
muttis adI mūtós speechless mutus
n̥ ind un- in-
nətis fem nates natis
absolutely
nāi ind equidem
yes
nantis fem courage audacia
nāsis fem ej neH2s-i nose nārēs
(natrikós,
natrīks fem serpent natrix
natrijós)
nawāgós epic sailor nauta
nāws fem (nāwós) neH2w- ship nāuis
n̥ bhudhnóm neu abyss abyssus
n̥ cḗn fem H1ngw groin inguen
n̥ dha ind H1ndh- then deinde
n̥ dherós adI tab underly inferior
n̥ dhētós adII unmade infectus
n̥ dhi ind in excess magis etiam
n̥ dwojos adI sincere sincērus
nē ind no nē
nebhlā fem fog nebula
nebhos nes es cf. nembhos cloud nūbes
449
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
nedhō H2nedh rise surgō
nedis fem ej nettle urtīca
nedjos adI nHed-yo- near propinquus
nedō tr AIb nHd link nōdō
nedsā fem net nassa
nedskō tr Ava nHd-skō bind nectō
nedus epi neighbour uicinus
neghō tr AIa penetrate penetrō
neghrōn mas en kidney rēnis
nei ind not at all nequaquam
neicō tr wash lauō
neidō tr AIa H3nei-d humiliate humiliō
neikō tr AIa winnow uentilō
neitom neu rivalry inimicitia
neiwós adI depressed dēpressus
nékāmi tr kill necō
nekopīnós mas unexpected necopiinus
neks mas (ṇkos) death nex
nembhos mas water cloud nimbus
némētom neu nemH- sanctuary sanctuārium
nemō tr n-em(H) distribute distribuō
nemos neu es forest nemus
nemots epic. (németos) nemH- enemy inimīcus
nepēts mas (népotos) H2nep-ōt- grandson nepos
grand-
neptis fem jo H2neptiH1/2; neptī neptis
daughter
neqe ind and not neque
neqid pron. nothing nihil
neqis nobody nemō
neqom ind never nunquam
neqos pron. someone quisquis
neros mas H2ner(o)- soldier milēs
nérteros adII lower inferus
nertos adI strong robustus
nesros adI neHs-ro modest modestus
neudō tr AIa spend impendō
neukos adI myop myops
neumi tr BIIIb neuH proclaim praeconor
new(ij)os adI new nouus
newājō tr renew nouō
newn̥ num H1newn nine nouem
néwn̥ dekm̥ num nineteen undeuigintī
néwn̥ dekəmos adII nineteenth undeuicesimus
néwn̥ dkm̥təmos adII ninetieth nōnāgēsimus
(H1)neundkm̥t-
néwn̥ dkm̥ta num ninety nōnāgintā
/(H1)neundkont-
newn̥ km̥témtəmo nine
adII nongentesimus
s hundredth
num newn̥ km̥tóm (ind.) +
newn̥ km̥tṓs nine hundred nongentī
dec gen.
nouenus
néwn̥ mos adII néwm̥tos ninth
(nōnus)
450
 Appendix II: Late Indo-European Lexicon
newō intr AIa nod nuō
newotāts fem (newotātjos) newness nouitās
n̥ gnōtós adI unknown ignōtus
n̥ neumi tr BIVb H3n-neu; n̥ skō teach doceō
nī ind down sub
nijóm (aor. a bherō) lead dūxī
nikjō H3nei-k attack adorior
niktis fem corn grānum
nínāmi tr BIIa, BIVa H3nH2; ı̄́nāmi befriend (to) faueō
go back to a
ninsai AVIa cf. nosejō good place/ recurrō
state
nīqos adII inclined prōnus
nisdos mas nest nīdus
nitējō sta *nei- shine niteō
nı̄́teros adI tab inferior inferior
nitjos adI usual usitātus
n̥ jousjom neu unjustice iuiuria
n̥ joustos adI unfair iniustus
n̥ kējō tr AIIIe need necesse est
H2nk; cf. nṇkskai; pf.
n̥ kneumi tr BIVb H2eH2nó(n)kH2e = arrive perueniō
ānoka
n̥ mrtijos adII ṇmṛtó- immortal immortālis
nm̥tos mas bending plecāmentum
H2n-H2nk-sk- ; cf. find by
nn̥ kskai tr AVc nanciscor
ṇkneumi chance
nocējō cau put off exuō
nogwod(h)o-
nócodos adII naked nūdus
/nogwoto /nogwno-
nōdos mas knot nōdus
noibhos adII holy sanctus
nōinos pron nōinlos none nullus
nokejō cau AIIIo destroy deleō
nom ind cf. num so num
nom nē ind do not? nonne
H3neHu3-mn,
nōmn̥ neu en name nōmen
H3nHu3-mn,
nōmnājō tr name nōminō
nomr̥ neu nómenos nomH- precision subtilitās
noqterinós adII night nocturnus
noqtis neu jo dhnoct-? cf. dhoncos night nox
nosejō cau AIIIo cf. ninsai free recipiō
nōunā fem noH2u- famine esuriēs
n̥ probhwos adI wicked improbus
n̥ qijētós adI restless inquiētus
n̥ serós adII our noster
n̥ sis mas jo H2n̥ si / H2n̥ sr̥ sword ensis
n̥ sloimis adII unmuddy illīmis
n̥ sme pron nom. acc. we nōs
n̥ swodhros adI extraordinary rārus
nū ind now nunc
451
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
num ind now num
numki ind ki num now nunc
n̥ widis adI ignorant ignārus
middle (in
obhi ind ob
the)
óbrusjā fem flask obrussa
H1oghwis; cf.
ochis mas worm lombrīcus
anghwis
odáugjai intr aggravate exulceror
odējō tr smell olō
odhrom neu enclosure claustrum
odjō (ōda) tr H3d hate ōdi
ōdjom neu hatred ōdium
odós mas es odor odor
oghlejō cau AIIIo trouble inquietō
oghlos mas annoyance molestia
ogmos mas H2og-mo track orbita
oidējō sta H3eid be swollen tumeō
oighai intr depart proficiscor
H2/3eH3i; cf. oitos,,
ōimi tr BIIf believe crēdō
ainō
oimos mas march itus
óinokos adII single ūnicus
num
oinos H1oi-no- one ūnus
dec
simultaneous in eōdem
oinowr̥ stós adII
ly made tempore factus
oisjā fem H3iH2s-? rudder tēmō
oiso, oisā, oisod adII that one iste
oitmi tr BIf H3oit- fetch appetō
oitos mas cf. ōimi, ainō oath sacrāmentum
oiwos fem H3eiwo- yew taxus
okējō sta doubt dubitō
óketā fem harrow occa
ōkinós adI ready compositus
okris fem Hº3eHi2k-ri- summit apex
óktōdekm̥ num eighteen duōdeuigintī
óktōdekəmos adII eighteenth duōdeuicesimus
eight
octōkm̥témtəmos adII octingentesimus
hundredth
num octōkm̥tóm (ind.) +
octōkm̥tṓs eight hundred octingentī
dec gen.
oktōu num (āi oi) H1oktō(u) eight octo
oktowós adII eighth octāuus
oktṓdkm̥təṃos adII eightieth octogesimus
oktōdkm̥t-
oktṓdkm̥ta num eighty octōgintā
/oktōdkont-
H3ku-/eH3ku- + -
ōkúpteros mas hawk accipiter
ptero-/-petro-
HeH3-k-u-; ōkus; cf.
ōkús adI swift rapidus
abhnós
olejō cau AIIIo H2ol- / HeHi2 ? heat adoleō
452
 Appendix II: Late Indo-European Lexicon
olējō cau AIIIe H3elH1 destroy aboleō
olgjā fem tendril cincinnus
ōlim ind formerly ōlim
oljoi oljāi olja pron pl. all omnes
mas /
olkis ej l̥kis; cf. elēn roe-deer alcēs
fem
olmos fem H1(o)lmo- elm ulmus
ōlnā fem H3olH1-neH2 elbow ulnā
ólteros adI further ulterus
óltm̥os sup. furthest ultimus
oltrōd ind over there ultrā
olwā fem sedge ulua
omos adI H3emH3o- firm firmus
ōmós adI eH3mH2 raw crūdus
omsos mas H1omH-so shoulder umerus
onbhlos mas H3nbh- navel umbilicus
onchis mas ej H3n(o)gwh-i fingernail unguis
oncn̥ neu (óncenos) H3engwṇ ointment unguen
oncō tr AVIII H3engw oint unguō
oncōl mas (ṇclós) H1ongw-ōl, cf. ecnis coal carbō
ondos neu óndesos rock saxum
onējō tr H3enH2 blame culpō
ónerjos mas Honr̥ /-n- Honerio- dream somnus
onghlos mas nail clāuus
onjos adII another alius
onkājō intr groan uncō
onkos mas cf. ankos hook uncus
onkos mas portion portiō
onos neu es H3en-os- load onus
ónteros adII second secundus
H1/2opitjo-: cf.
ópitjos adII posterior posterior
epi/apo?
opjō tr choose ēligō
opnā fem opnos (es-) wealth substantia
opnis adI abundant abundans
ópopā fem hoopoe upupa
H3ep-os-; H3ep-r-/
opos neu (ópesos) work opus
H3ep-n-
opos esti intr be necessary opportet
ops mas (ēpos) riches ops
oqō tr see uideō
oqos mas H3okwo- eye oculus
ōrā fem edge ōra
ōrājō tr pray ōrō
orbhis mas H3erbhi-; cf. orghis disk orbis
orbhjom neu inheritance hērēditās
orbhos adII H3erbho- orphan orbus
pordhos ? cf. gr.
ordhos mas hammer malleus
perqw
orgājō tr H3erg beat up contundō
H3erghi-; cf. orbhis,
orghis fem ej ball pila
r̥ ghējō
453
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
orghós tr H1orghó- incited sollicitātus,
ormos adI poor pauper
oros neu es mountain mons
ortus mas wo- H3ertu- origin orīgō
orús adI H3eru-; H3ersi- high altus
H3eHw3s- (Bernabé)
ōs neu (sos) H1eH3s- (Melchert) mouth ōs
H3eH1s- (Vaan)
osdcos mas knot nodus
osdos mas H2osdo- branch rāmus
osēn mas (osnós) H3esH3r̥ / H3esH3en autumn autumnus
oskos fem H3es-ko- /-kā ashtrē frāxinus
ósonos fem H3es-no- ashtree ornus
H3estHi-; H3estHṛ- /
ostis mas ej bone os
H3estHṇ -
ōsmi tr BIf H3eHw3s- open aperiō
ōstjom neu aperture ōstium
oudn̥ neu (óudesos) H1ud land terra
ougros adI cold frigidus
Hº3Hw3s-, H3oHw3s-,
ousis fem ear auris
H3eHw3s-, H3H3wºs-
ṓw(ij)om neu H1oH2w-yo egg ōuum
owājō tr cheer ouō
owikā́ fem small sheep ouicula
owis fem H3ewi- sheep ouis
owō inc AIId H3ew get dressed induō
pəgtós adI pH1g-to fixed pactus
pəgrós adI pH1g-ro pH1g-no sure constans
pəra ind close to iuxta
pərijō tr perH3 give birth pariō
pəros ind before prae
pəstrom neu page pagina
pətējō sta ptH1 /pH1t lie open pateō
pətēr mas (p∂tros) pH2-ter; tab father pater
pəterā́ fem saucer patera
pətjai tr suffer patior
pətrjā fem fatherland patria
pətrjos adII fatherly paternus
pətrujós mas uncle patruus
pəwējō sta fear paueō
pādhlom neu peH2-dhlo/tlo- sustenance pābulum
pagos mas region pagus
pakō tr AIIa peH2k; cf. pn̥ gō fasten uinciō
paks fem (pākos) peace pax
pālājō tr protect protegō
pálejā fem straw palea
pálowos adI grey pallidus
palpājō tr touch tangō
pámponos mas vine-leaf pampinus
pandos mas bent pandus
panknos swelling pannus
pankō intr swell tumescō
454
 Appendix II: Late Indo-European Lexicon
pannos mas rag pannus
pāpeljos mas butterfly pāpiliō
paplā fem swelling papula
pareikā fem concubine paelex
pārējō intr come out pāreō
parkō tr AIIb refrain from parcō
parsā fem sparrow parra
pasknis mas ej food pābulum
pāskō tr peH2-sk; cf. pāsmi feed pāscō
peH2-sk; cf. pāskō;
pāsmi intr BIe heed attendō
dat
pāsós mas relative familiāris
pastos adI fix fixus
pāstus mas pasture pastus
pau ind a bit paucum
paukos adI little paucus
paulos adI pauros small paruus
pāwr̥ neu (pwnós) peH2w-r- fire ignis
pedjō intr AIVc fall down cadō
pedjṓ s adI II worse dēterius
pedlom neu sandal sandalia
pedom neu pedóm ? footprint peda
pegtos neu es chest pectus
peidō prog AIa grow fat pinguescō
peigō tr AIa peikō; cf. pikrós annoy molestō
peikā fem woodpecker pīca
peikō tr AIa adorn ornō
peikos mas magpie pīcus
peiks fem (pikós) pitch pix
peimis adI quick celer
peitus mas peiHtu- resin resīna
pējō tr AIa insult insultō
pekō tr comb pectō
pektēn mas (pektnós) comb pecten
pektō tr AIa comb pectō
peku neu (pékewos) cattle pecu
peldō tr AIa pelH2; cf. pḷnamaí impel pellō
pelkō tr AIa move intermoueō
pelnis fem jo skin pellis
pelō tr AIb make money lucror
pelom neu polos surface superficiēs
pelsā fem rock rūpēs
pelu ind pelH1u much multum
pelupoikos adI variegated uarius
pēlwis fem dish peluis
pḷHwo-, polHwo-,
pelwos neu es dust puluis
pḷHwi-
pēmn̥ neu damage dētrimentum
pendō tr hang pendō
work with a
penō tr cum fīlō laborō
thread
penom neu mud lutum
455
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
penos neu es provision prouisiō
penqe num five quinque
pénqedekm̥ num fifteen quindecim
pénqedekəmos adII fifteenth quindecimus
penqédkm̥təmos adII fiftieth quinquāgēsimus
penkwedkm̥t-
penqédkm̥ta num fifty quinquaginta
/penkwedkont-
penqekm̥témtəm five
adII quingentesimus
os hundredth
num penqekm̥tóm (ind.) +
penqekm̥tṓs five hundred quingentī
dec gen.
penqstis fem jo fist pugnus
penqtos adII fifth quintus
pēnsús mas sand/gravel saburra
pentō tr AIa track indāgō
peqō tr AIa cook coquō
peqtis fem cooking coctiō
peqtṓ r mas cook coctor
peqtós adI cooked coctus
pérəmos adII perəmós absolute absolūtus
per(i), per(ti) ind about per
per(i), per(ti) ind very ualdē
perijō tr experience experiōr
perístānom neu religion religiō
perknā fem cf. pr̥ qos trout tructa
pérkūnjom neu perw-r̥ /en mountain mons
perom ind cf. peros besides praeterea
peróm neu feather plūma
peros ind cf. perom farther prorsum
pérpern̥ ks ind turned aside perperām
perqos fem oak quercus
persā fem pers(n)eH2 heel calx
persnā fem ham perna
persō intr AIa splash respergō
pertā fem pole pertica
perti ind otherwise altrinsecus
péruti ind last year anno praeterito
pesdō intr fart pedō
pesmi tr pes rub fricō
pesnis mas jo penis pēnis
peterós mas wing āla
petlos adI pétH2los meager petilus
pet; petH1/2/3
petō intr fly aduolō
secundārium
petsnā fem feather penna
petsnós mas bird uolucrēs
peumi tr BIIIb understand intellegō
pewō tr AIa pwH clean purgō
pibō tr peHi3 drink bibō
pigējō sta be annoying molestus (esse)
pikrós adI cf. peigō sharp picans
pilos mas hair pilus
456
 Appendix II: Late Indo-European Lexicon
pīmós adI fat crassus
(pím)prēmi tr BIIb prH1 blow up conflō
pinkō tr paint pingō
pinjos neu stab baculum
pinsō tr crush pinsō
pípāmi tr peH2; cf. spáneumi draw trahō
píperi neu ej pepper piper
píperkmi tr fill expleō
pipjājō intr squeak pipiō
piptō tr (pepta) petH fall down praecipitor
piskis mas ej fish piscis
pitús mas food cibus
piwōn adI (fem. píweryā) fat pinguis
plabrājai intr babble garriō
make congruere
plākājō cau AIIIa cf. sedējō/sēdājō
adequate facere
plakējō sta AIIIe cf. sedējō/sēdājō be adequate congruō
plākos adI flat plānus
plākos adI wide latus
plānos adI plH2-no flat plānus
plārom neu floor contabulātiō
plātom neu planitiēs campus
plātús adI pl̥H2-tu; plātus broad latus
plautos adI flat-footed plautus
pl̥dājō intr paddle plaudō
plēdhwis fem ej crowd multitūdō
plēis ind plōis pleH1-is / ploH1-is more plūs
plēistos adII sup greatest plūrimus
plējṓ s adII comp greater maior
plékāmi tr fold plicō
plektō tr AIa plait plectō
(pím)plēmi tr BIIb plH1; cf pḷnāmi fill pleō
plēmn̥ neu filling plētūra
plēnós adI plH1-nó full plēnus
plētis fem filling plētūra
shoulder-
pletjā fem coll. scapulae
blades
plētós adI plH2-to full plēnus
pleudō tr AIa pleu-d flood inundō
pleumōn mas en lung pulmō
plewō intr AIa flow fluō
plighā fem appendix appendix
pl̥mā fem plH2meH2 palm palma
pl̥namaí intr BIVa pelH2; cf. peldō approach (to) appropinquō
plH1; plḗnāmi,
pl̥nāmi inc BIVa fill pleō
pḷnēmi; cf. pímplēmi
pln̥ gō tr AVIc plH2-g strike plangō
plousmā fem feather plūma
ploutos mas board tabula
plówijā fem rain pluuia
plówijom neu cf. plowós ship nāuis
plowós mas cf. plówijom boat ratis
457
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
pel(H)-, pḷ(H)-;
pl̥wós adI grey albogiluus
pol(H)wós
pl̥táwijā fem pḷtH2wiH2 earth terra
pl̥tnos mas plH2t-H2no; cf. plātús flatness planitiēs
pl̥tom coat sagum
plúwaidhom neu lead plumbum
pl̥wods mas (pḷwedos) swamp palus
pn̥ dēks mas (pṇdkos) paunch pantex
pneusō intr AIa breathe anhelō
pn̥ gō tr AVIb pH2g; cf pakō nail pangō
pn̥ tō tr ptH1 /pH1t spread out pandō
podjom neu relief podium
pods mas (pedos) foot pēs
poimēks mas poimkós pumice pūmex
pōimōn mas en poH2i-mōn shepherd pāstor
pojejō cau AIIIo get drunk inebriō
polis fem (pólejos) (t)pḷH-i- city urbs
polkā fallow ueruactum
polnēks mas (polṇkós) thumb pollēx
polnō intr pH3l fall cadō
polpos mas scene pulpitus
poltos mas pelH- porridge puls
pondos neu es weight pondus
pōnom neu drinking pōtus
ponteH1s
pontēs mas (pn̥ tos) (pn̥ tH1es)?; pen- way uia
(s)toH2 ?
poqós mas cook coquus
porā fem prH1 air aer
porejō cau AIIIo cau convey asportō
porkos mas pig porcus
pornós mas cf. pratis 'filix' feather plūma
porsis mas bull bouuculus
porsōd ind far procul
portājō tr carry portō
pos(ti) ind after post
pósteri ind afterwards postea
pósteros adI tab subsequent posterus
póstm̥os sup. tab last porstrēmus
postrōd ind backwards retrō
potejō cau make fly uolāre faciō
potējō tr hold possideō
poti ind Hpoti towards uersus
poti linkō tr poti linekmi offer offerō
potijai inc abl acquire potior
potis mas ej master dominus
pōtis fem jo drink pōtiō
pōtlom neu glass pōculum
potmos mas span lātitūdo
potnjā fem mistress domina
pōtṓ r mas drinker pōtor
pougā́ fem buttocks pūga
458
 Appendix II: Late Indo-European Lexicon
poughos adI virginal uirginālis
pougnos mas fist pugnus
pounā fem swelling turgentia
poutos mas penis pēnis
powejō cau AIIIo clean purgō
póweros mas boy puer
prāi ind prH1i before prae
práighesto ind at hand praestō
práiloghos adII present praesens
práinōmn̥ neu en name praenōmen
práiteri ind along praeter
prāmos sup prH2-mo- first prīmus
pratis fem ej cf. pornós 'plūma' fern filix
prāwos adII first prīmus
preistos adI preceding anterior
prējō intr fan flabellō
aliquid ab aliquō; cf.
prekō tr beseech precor
pr̥ kskō
preks fem (prēkos) plea prex
premō tr AVIII press premō
prepō intr AIa look like uideor
presō tr AVIII press premō
pretjom neu price pretium
pretō tr AIb realise percipiō
préwijos adI es previous anterior
prewō dur AIa preugō jump out exsiliō
pr̥ gā fem portico porticus
prijós adI dear cārus
prījṓ s adII (prījesos) foremost prīmus
prīskos adI *preiskwú ? ancient priscus
prīsmos sup. first prīmus
prītis fem priH-ti pleasure delectātiō
prītós adI priH-to pleased delectātus
pr̥ gjō tr AIVa fear timeō
pr̥ kā́ fem furrow sulcus
pr̥ knos adI motley uarius
pr̥ kskā fem question quaestiō
pr̥ kskō tr cf. prekō ask poscō
pr̥ nāmi tr BIVa prH2 sell uendō
pr̥ nos adI pṛH-nó, perH-nó past praeteritus
prō(d) ind pro forwards prō
probhoudhos mas attention attentiō
probhwājō tr prove probō
probhwos adI probhú- good bonus
prodətṓr adII traitor próditor
prṓddōmi tr put forth prodō
in the
prōi ind mane
morning
proitis fem departure profectiō
prokós mas suitor procus
prokos adI advanced prouectus
promos sup principal prīmus
459
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
proqēd ind near prope
proqos adI nigh propinquus
prósēdjom neu kindness beneficium
próstōrnos adI extended extensus
prostos mas promontory tumulus
prīmus (a
próteros adII first (of two)
duobus)
proti ind against contrā
prōtós neu prH3-tó assigned attribūtus
prousijō intr irritate irritō
pr̥ ptus mas (pṛptewós) form forma
pr̥ qjō tr clean purgō
pr̥ qos adI cf. perknā coloured uarius
pr̥ snā fem prH3sneH2 piece fragmentum
pr̥ som neu leek porrum
pr̥ stis mas prominence prominentia
pr̥ tis fem prH3ti- part pars
pr̥ tus mas (pṛtwos) ford portus
prunsō tr freeze gelō
prúsneumi tr BIVb water rigō
pruswā́ fem frost pruīna
pteljā fem lime-tree tilia
pujō inc puH molder putēscō
pūjós adI cf. pūtós righteous pius
pukos mas tail cauda
pulgā fem lock of hair crīnis
pūlós adI cf. pūterós putrid puter
pungō tr peug / peuk punch pungō
pūpos mas child pūpus
powros; cf.
pūrós adI dweiros/dwīrós, pure pūrus
skeiros/skīrós
pūrós mas puHro- core nucleus
pusbhis mas H3pu-s-bhi groom pubēs
pusjō tr inflate inflō
puslēks mas pusḷkós flea pūlēx
pustlā fem pustule pustula
pūtējō sta be rotten pūteō
pūterós adI cf. pūlós rotten puter
putlom neu child infans
pūtós adI cf. pūjós clean putus
puwējō tr reckon computō
puwos neu es puH pus pūs
qəddrom neu square quadrum
qədnos adI magic magicus
qətjō tr shake quatiō
qəturs ind four times quater
qətrusnōs adII four each quaternī
qətwr̥ atnjom neu four years quadriennium
qətwr̥ djówijom neu four days quadriduum
qətwr̥ pods adII jo quadruped quadrupēs
qətwr̥ tos adII fourth quartus
460
 Appendix II: Late Indo-European Lexicon
qād ind which quā
qālis adII how quālis
qām ind kweH2m as quam
qāqos pron whoever quisque
qasjos mas basket cista
qā́ wn̥ tos pron how great quantus
qe ind (encl.) and que
qedos mas angle angulus
qedos neu magic force magia
qeisō tr kwei-s/kwei-t consider considerō
qeistis fem AIa quoque kwistis consideration considerātiō
qejēskō intr qiH1 rest quiēscō
qejō tr compose compōnō
qejtis fem quoque qjtis collection collectiō
qekō tr AIa gaze prospectō
qeli ind far (from) procul
qelō dur AIa kwelH2 circulate uersor
qelos neu group caterua
qelpō tr AIa curve incuruō
qelsō tr furrow sulcō
qemō tr swallow uorō
qeqlom neu qeqlóm, q∂qlos wheel rota
qerpō inc AIa turn reuertor
qésai intr complain queror
qestis fem part pars
qétwordekm̥ num fourteen quattuordecim
quattuordecimu
qétwordekəmos adII fourteenth
s
ktwH3r-; tab; quoque
qetwores, num
q∂tw∂res, fem. four quattuor
qétesres dec
qétsores
qétwr̥ dkm̥təmos adII fortieth quadragēsimus
kwetwr̥ dkm̥t- /
qétwr̥ dkm̥ta num forty quadrāgintā
kwetwr̥ dkont-
qetwr̥ km̥témtm̥o quadrigentesim
adII four hundreth
s us
num qetwr̥ km̥tóm (ind.) +
qetwr̥ km̥tṓs four hundred quadringentī
dec gen.
qidpe ind indeed quippe
qijētis fem rest quiēs
qijētós adI peaceful quiētus
qinō tr AVIe compensate compensō
qínumoi tr avenge uindicō
qíqeimi tr BIId estimate aestimō
qis qid int tab what qui quae quod
quisquis
qisqis qidqid pron anyone
quidquid
qm̥dō int when quandō
qn̥ tjō tr suffer patior
qō ind qoH2(e); qōi? whither quō
qodhei int where ubī
qoinā́ fem retaliation ulciscātiō
461
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
qoinom mas dirt excrēmentum
qoitrós, koitrós adI fair weather serēnus
qolkā fem cushion culcita
qolos mas hub axis
qolus fem (ew) qelus distaff colus
qom ind when cum
qomde ind where unde
qondhros fem angelica angelica
qori ind why ? cūr
qorjom neu cauldron catīnus
qoros mas type indolēs
qos qā(i) qod rel tab who, which quī quae quod
qostā fem cough tussis
qot(j)os int how many quot
qota int how ut
qote int whither quō
qóteros pron which uter
qotrēd ind whither quō
qotrōd ind wherefrom unde
qr̥ eumi tr BIIIb kwrH; qerjō make faciō
qrínāmi tr kwrei-H2 buy emō
qrītóm adII bought emptus
qr̥ mis mas (qṛmejós) worm uermis
qr̥ snos mas bush arbustus
qr̥ tus mas (qṛtewós) cf. krwtis time uix
rəbhjō intr rage rabō
rədjom neu rtH ray radium
rəgājō tr wet rigō
rəpjō tr snatch rapiō
rətis fem (r∂tjos) reason ratiō
rādō rac H(w)rH2d shave rādō
ragjā fem ray raia
rāpom neu turnip rāpum
rārós adI dispersed rārus
rastós adI smooth glaber
raukos adI tough rudis
rāwos adI grey rāuus
r̥ dhjō intr grow crēscō
r̥ dhwos adI Hrdh-wo- steep arduus
rebhā fem leap saltus
rebhājō intr jump saltō
rebhō tr AIa shield tegō
rebhrus mas tube conductus
recos mas (H1e)regwo- ; pl. darkness tenebrae
rēd/re ind dis- re(d)
regeinā fem rēgnī queen regīna
regjos adII kingly regius
regnom neu regjom kingdom regnum
regō tr H3reg direct regō
regs mas (rēgos) king rex
regtós mas right rectus

462
 Appendix II: Late Indo-European Lexicon
reidhō tr AIa ride equitō
reidhos adI easy facilis
reigō tr AIa bind alligō
reimā fem reiwā crack rīma
rēimn̥ neu en rīmo-, rīmā- list seriēs
(rijós
rēis fem *H2reH1-i- propriety rēs
<*H2r̥ H1jós)
reiwos mas reiH2-; cf. rínāmi brook rīuus
rējō intr AVIII H1rH row rēmō
rekā tick ricinus
rékneumi tr BIVb determine determinō
remō intr AIb H1rem relax requiescō
rēmoi neu H2rH1 reckon reor
renō intr AIb renH run currō
rentus mas property possessiō
rēpō intr crawl rēpō
resgō tr AIa plait plectō
resgtis fem rope restis
H1reH1-smo / (-t-
rēsmos mas oar rēmus
smo ?)
rēti neu strainer colum
retō intr AIb retH2 run currō
retrōd ind back retrō
reubō intr AIa scrape out abrādō
reudhos adI red (-haired) rūfus
reudhos neu es H1reudhos/es redness rubōr
reud(H); reudō /
reudō intr AIa cry rūdō
reudmi
reudos adI wild rudis
reughmn̥ neu dough pasta
reugō intr AIa H1reu-g belch ructō
rumor (to
reumi H3reuH rūmorem faciō
produce)
reusmn̥ neu rūmen rūmen
reusmnājō intr ruminate rūminō
rew ind outdoors forās
réwesnā fem ruin ruina
rewis mas Hrew planet planēta
rewmn̥ neu hair capillum
inc /
rewō AIa H3rw / rwH3 break off dēfringō
tr
rews, rows; cf. jewos,
rewos neu (réwesos) open land rūs
weis
r̥ ghējō tr cf. orghis incite sollicitō
rigjō tr torture tormentō
rikjō tr ruin ruinō
rínāmi tr BIVa H3reiH; cf. reiwos flush away ēgerō
r̥ kējō sta tr AIIIe H2rk contain arceō
r̥ kēslom neu door-bar repagula
r̥ klā fem r̥ ktlā chest arcula
r̥ nāmi tr BIVa H1erH2 divide dīuidō
r̥ neumi tr BIVb H3r move cieō
463
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
r̥ numái tr BIVb try to get capessō
r̥ nutis fem jo movement mōmentum
robhos mas H3robho- roof tectus
rōdhí ind (gen.) on account of causā
rōdhjō tr endeavour conitor
rōdō tr H(w)rH2d tear rōdō
rōdos adI joyful alacer
roinos mas dam agger
ros mas (rēsos) spray ros
rōstrom neu rōd-trom beak rōstrum
rotā fem rotH-eH2 wheel rota
rotājō intr rōteH2-je/o- turn rotō
roudhós neu es H1roudhó- metal metallum
roudhstos mas r(o)udh-to? rust rōbīgō
roudos mas crying plōrātus
rounā fem ruH-nā; rūnā secret secrētum
roupis fem rock rūpēs
routos mas intestine intestīnum
rowā́ fem H1erH1- pause cessātiō
r̥ sēn mas (r̥ snos) H1r̥ sen; cf. wersis male mās
r̥ sjā fem H2r- envy inuidia
r̥ skai intr H1r go eō
r̥ tís fem jo farewell abitiō
r̥ tkos mas H2rt-ko- bear ursus
rudhējō sta be red rubeō
rudhrós adI H1ru-dhro- red ruber
rudhsós adI reddish rubeus
rudlós adI rude rudis
H3reuH / H3reug /
rugijō intr roar rugiō
H3reuk
ruktus mas tunic tunica
rumpō tr break rumpō
runkō tr AVIa H3ruk weed runcō
rupús adI rupus shoddy insincērus
ruspājai tr rummage rūspor
rwtós adI H3rw-to collapsed rutus
s(w)ei neu whenever sī
s(w)eike ind thus sīc
səkesnā fem pickaxe sacēna
səksom neu stone saxum
səni ind snHi apart separātim
səpijō tr have taste sapiō
sərijō tr weed sarriō
sətos tr sH2to- satiated satiātus
sāgijō tr seH2g seek sāgiō
sagom neu mantle sagum
sāimn̥ neu seH2i-mn secretion secrētiō
saipis mas fence saepēs
saitā fem hair (strong) saeta
saitlom neu lifetime saeculum
saiwos adI fierce saeuus

464
 Appendix II: Late Indo-European Lexicon
sājō sta be furious saeuiō
sákrodhokjom neu sacrifice sacrificium
sákrodhots mas et priest sacerdos
sakrós adI seH2k- / sH2k- holy sacer
sal neu (salós, sálejos) sali salt sal
saldō cau salt sallō
(salikós,
salēiks fem salīks willow salix
salijós)
saleiwā fem saliva salīua
salom neu swell salum
salús adI salus dirty immundus
sāmn̥ neu quietness quiēs
samdhos mas sand sabulum
sāmis adI quiet quiētus
samos mas sṃos, sṃā summer aestas
sH2; sH2neumi; sātijō
sánāmi tr BIVb satisfy satisfaciō
(cf. westijō )
sáneumi tr BIVb snH perform efficiō
sankijō tr enact sanciō
sapos fem juice succus
sasjóm neu crop messis
sātis fem satisfaction satiās
sauros adI sūrós sour acerbus
sā́ wel(jos) seH2w-l̥/n̥ ; sw-r̥ /n̥ sun sōl
se pron (sewe) tab himself se
se/sos sā/sī tod pron tab this iste ista istud
sēd ind apart sē
sēdājō cau appease sēdō
sedējō sta be sitting sedeō
sedējō ambhí sta besiege circumsedeō
sedlā fem chair sella
sedmn̥ neu settlement conditus
sedos neu es residence sēdēs
segēts fem (segtós) sowing satiō
plough
seghdhlā fem sghedhlā, seghedhlā buris
handle
seghō tr AIa hold retineō
seghos mas victory uictoria
seghurós adI secure firmus
ségneumi tr BIVb trap capiō
segnom neu trap pedica
segō tr AIb sow serō
seikā fem club fustis
seikō tr intend intendō
seiqō tr spill effundō
seilō intr AIa drip exstillō
seimā fem seiH-meH2 band uitta
seinus mas seiH-nu- chain catēna
sējdhlom neu sieve cōlum
sējō tr AVIII sH1y sieve cōlō
sékāmi tr sekH2; cf. skijō cut secō
sēklā fem sektlā scythe sēcula
465
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
sēknis adI calm calmōsus
seks / sweks num ksweks ? six sex
séksdekm̥ num swéksdekm̥ sixteen sēdecim
séksdekəmos adII swéksdek∂mos sixteenth sēdecimus
séksdkm̥təṃos adII swels- sixtieth sexāgēsimus
séksdkṃta num sixty sexāginta
sekskm̥témtəmos adII six hundredth sescentesimus
sekskm̥tóm (ind.) +
sekskm̥tṓs num six hundred sexceritī
gen.; sweks-
sekstos adII sixth sextus
sekūris fem axe secūris
selgō tr AIa shoot disparō
seljos adI pleasant amoenus
HeHw3lk / s-
selkō intr AIa drag sulcō
HHw3elk
selō tr AIb buy emō
selom neu solos, solā, solis residence domicilium
sēlom neu sowing sementis
selwā fem property possessiō
sémdekm̥ num óindekm̥ eleven undecim
sémdekəmos adII óindek∂mos eleventh undecimus
sēmi- adII half medius
semjō tr aquam a naue bilge out excupāre
semli ind once semel
sēmn̥ neu sḗmenos seed sēmen
semos mas semo- / sṃo- one ūnus
senchō intr sing canō
senējō sta be old seneō
senēks mas (senós) senos; senH1, senH2 old senex
senqō inc AIa sink mergō
sentos neu es path sēmita
sepēlijō tr bury sepeliō
sépeltrom neu tomb sepulcrum
sepō tr organize apparō
séptəmos adII seventh septimus
septm̥ num seven septem
septm̥dekm̥ num seventeen septemdecirn
septrm̥dekəmos adII seventeenth septemdecirnus
séptm̥dkm̥təmos adII seventieth septuagesimus
septm̥dkm̥t-
séptm̥dkṃta num seventy septuaginta
/septm̥dkont-
septm̥km̥témtəm seven septingentesim
adII
os hundredth us
num septm̥km̥tóm (ind.) seven
septm̥km̥tṓs septingeritī
dec + gen. hundred
seqai dur follow sequor
seqi ind vis-à-vis aduersum
seqō tr say dīcō
seqos adI separate separātus
sēr mas (sros) peak culmen
serdhō tr rub fricō
serō tr AIa connect serō
466
 Appendix II: Late Indo-European Lexicon
serom neu liquid serum
sēros adI long-lasting sērus
sérpenos mas snake serpens
serpō intr AIa crawl serpō
sesmi sleep dormiō
sesqos fem sedge spartum
setis epic. visitor uisitātor
sētús adI sHi-tu, cf. sisō; sitús far-reaching sparsus
sḗtjosi ind later posterius
seugō tr AIa suck sūgō
seutō sta AIa boil ferueō
sewājō prog lessen minuō
igenes
sewe self sui
.
séwijos adII his suus
sewō tr seuH stir up permoueō
silējō intr sHi- silent (to be) sileō
síneumi tr BIVb syH(w) bind ligō
sinísteros adI propice idōneus
sinō tr place sinō
sinus mas ew bosom sinus
sisdō intr sit down sīdō
sísermi intr BIIe flow fluō
sísghrāmi tr smell olfaciō
síslāwos adI beneficial benignus
sisō tr sHi1 sow serō
sisqos adI dry siccus
skeiros?; cf.
skīrós adI dwoiros/dwīrós, clear clārus
powros/pūrós
sjewmn̥ neu sjuHm∂n seam sūtūra
sjewō tr AIa syHw sew suō
sjūdhlā fem syHw -(dh)leH2 sewer's awl sūbula
sjūtós adI sewn sūtus
skabhjēs fem scabies scabiēs
skabhnom neu stool scamnus
skabhō tr scratch scabō
skaiwós adI left-handed scaeuus
skalpō tr carve scalpō
skandō dur mount scandō
skandslā fem ladder scāla
skāpos mas handle manubrium
skatējō dur gush scateō
skatō inc spring scatō
skédnāmi tr BIVa skedH2; cf. skindō scatter dispergō
skegō intr hasten festīnō
skejō sta AIa shine luceō
cf. kekō; (s)kH1/2ek,
skekō intr AIa burst in irrumpō
(s)keH1/2k;
skelō tr AIa shall debeō
skelos neu es evil scelus
skemō tr cover uelō
467
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
skerbhō tr AIa hollow out excauō
(s)keHr(-deH2)
skerdā fem shit merda
\Hr/Hn
skerdō AIa castrate castrō
skerjō tr split scindō
skerō intr spring exsultō
skeubhō inc AIa escape effugiō
skeudō tr AIa shoot ēmittō
skeumō tr AIa cover obruō
skeuros adI dark obscūrus
skeutō tr AIa s-kuH-t cover operiō
skewō tr AIa H2kw-; cf. koweyō inspect (to) inspiciō
skidjō tr decide dēcernō
skH2-(i)je/o-; cf.
skijō tr discern discernō
sékāmi
skindō tr cf. skédnāmi split scindō
skīwr̥ neu (skīwṇós) (s)kiHu- shin-bone tībia
skl̥iqā fem pod siliqua
skl̥jō tr (s)kel split scindō
skl̥neumi BIVb deflect deflectō
skn̥ gjō intr limp claudicō
sknidā fem nit ouum
skodhos mas harm damnum
skoidos mas woodpiece lignum
skoirsās adII clown scurrā
skoitom neu skoito-s, skeito-m shield scūtum
skojā́ fem shade umbra
skolmā fem small pillar columella
skōlos mas element ēlementum
skolpos mas shelf pluteus
skortom neu whore scortum
skostrom neu canopy umbraculum
skotos mas shadow umbra
skouros mas nord septentriō
skousā fem trousers pantalōnus
skreibhō tr AIa write scribō
skreidō tr AIa carve caelō
skrobhis fem pit scrobis
skroupos mas sherd scrūpus
skroutos mas skeletton larua
skubtis fem omoplate scapulae
skutājō tr maim truncō
skūtos mas skuH-to covering operīmentum
slabai intr slip labor
slagós adI slH2gó- slack laxus
slakō tr hit offendō
slatā fem rod ferula
sleibō AIa slip prolabor
sleidhō intr AIa glide surrēpō
sleigō AIa smooth explanō
sleimā fem sleH1i-meH2 file līma
sleimājō tr polish līmō
468
 Appendix II: Late Indo-European Lexicon
sleimāks mas jo snail cochlea
sleiwos adI violet liueus
slējús adI sleH1i-u-, slējus smooth lēuis
sleubō inc AIa slip prolabor
sleugō tr AIa devour uorō
sligōn mas en mattock ligō
sl̥ijai inc spring saliō
sloidhos mas mass massa
sloiwom neu plum prunum
slougos mas crowd multitūdō
slr̥ gjō tr gulp lurcō
sm̥ ind together cunctim
smā ind certainly certō
smalos mas smH1-lo, smeH1-lo animal animal
smegō tr AIa desire cupiō
smeidhō tr AIa carve caelō
smeikā neu crumb mīca
smeirai tr wonder admīror
smeirātlom neu miracle mirāculum
smeiros adI wonderful mīrus
smeitō tr AIa send mittō
smejō intr AIa smile arrideō
smokru- /smokur-
smekslā fem chin mentum
smokuenos
smelgā fem turfgrass agrostis
smelō dur AIa burn urō
smemorjā fem memory memoria
s-m(i)H-(d);
smā́ neumi inc BIVb stain maculō
smḗ neumi
smerdā fem shit merda
smerdō intr AIa stink foeteō
smeros neu es defect mendum
smerwā fem marrow medulla
smeughō intr AIa smoke fūmō
sm̥gheslom neu thousand mille
sm̥itis fem sm̥oitis accordance concursus
smitlā fem sm(i)H2- stain macula
sm̥lis adI similar similis
sm̥loghós fem wife uxor
sm̥ópətōr epi sṃóp∂tros sibling fraterculans
smoughos mas alleyway angustiae
smoughos mas smoke fūmus
sm̥plos adI simple simplex
smudhnō intr AVId acc. uel cōgit. contrive machinor
smúghneumi tr BIVb slip in irrēpō
snəghjō intr creep rēpō
snadhō tr cut off amputō
snāmi intr Bib snH2 swim nō
sneighs fem (snighwós) snow nix
sneitō tr AIa curtail dēminuō
sneitos adI scanty exiguus

469
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
(s)-nH1;
snēmi tr spin neō
sneH1-ye/o-
snēmn̥ neu yarn nēmen
snerō intr AIa whirl contorqueō
snētjā fem snēti-, snētu- embroidery intextus
sneubhō tr AIa marry nūbō
sneudhs fem (snudhós) (aerea) smog turbulentia
snēwər neu *sneH1w-r̥ /n̥ - cable mitra
sníncheti sta snow ninguit
snoghā snake serpens
sn̥ stus intelligence sensus
sn̥ tējō think cōgitō
sn̥ terí ind missing absente
daughter-in-
snusós fem norus
law
sōdejō cau AIIIo sodejō settle instituō
sōdjā mas soot fūlīgō
sodjom neu seat solium
sodóm intr (aor.ab eimi) went iī
sognos mas rope retinaculum
soitos mas soiH(w)-to magic uenēficium
sōlājai tr selH2 give joy sōlor
solkos mas s-HHw3olko- furrow sulcus
solpos mas oil oleum
soḷH2-wo,
solwos pron whole tōtus
sḷH2-wo
solwotāts fem (solwotātjos) totality integritās
make equal
somejō tr AIIIo aequō
(to)
somós adII somHó-; sṃos equal aequus
sondhos mas son-dhH1o protrusion excrescentia
sontejō cau AIIIo send mittō
sontis adI cf. esn̥ ts; sontjós uērus sons
soru neu plunder spolium
soqjós mas allied socius
soqtis fem jo sokwtH-i thigh-bone femur
sormos mas sorā flow fluxus
sorbhējō tr sip sorbeō
sorbhos fem rowan tree sorbus
sorwā fem entrails uiscus
soujós adII left sinister
soukos mas swoqós juice sūcus
sówijā fem kiss sauia
spəros adI spH1-ro thriving prosperus
spakos mas drop gutta
speH2; speH2neumi;
spáneumi tr BIVb attract attrahō
cf. pípāmi
sparos mas post sparus
sparwos mas sparrow parra
speikā fem head of cereal spīca
speiksnā fem prickle spīna
speimis adI thin tenuis
470
 Appendix II: Late Indo-European Lexicon
spekjēs fem aspect speciēs
spekjō tr look speciō
spelghā fem spleen lien
spelgis mas pole asser
spelō intr cf. bhelō recitate recitō
speltā cf. pelnis table tabula
spēmi prog speH1 extend extendī
spēnos mas psteHn ?? nipple tetta
speqos mas cave specus
sperdhō tr AIa compete certō
sperghō intr AIa hurry festīnō
sperjō tr scatter spargō
(spos
spēs fem speH1, speH1os hope spes
<*spH1os)
speudō tr hurry accelerō
spingjā fem finch passer
spjewō intr AIa spit spuō
digitālis
spjonos fem foxglove
purpurea
spjwtos adI spit sputus
spleidō tr AIa split secō
spleighō intr AIa retire sēcēdō
splighstós mas side latus
spl̥ndējō sta be bright splendeō
spl̥tājō tr AIa cut off separō
spn̥ dō intr s-pH1d flutter coruscō
spoimā fem foam spūma
spoisājō intr perspire spirō
spoisnā fem breath halitus
spoljom neu dispossession spolium
spondejō tr AIIIo promise spondeō
spondhā fem bed lectus
spōnos mas stick uirga
sponstós mas betrothed sponsus
sporējō cau AIIIe sporH1eje/o tread calcō
sportā fem basket sporta
spoudā́ tr haste coactus
spr̥ āmi tread calcō
spreigō sta AIa abound abundō
spreudō intr AIa accelerate accelerō
sprewō tr AIa excite excitō
spr̥ gō tr AIIh spH2r-g burst displōdō
spr̥ nō cau sperH1 move away spernō
spr̥ os mas ankle talus
sqalos mas large fish squalus
sqeros neu es portent prodigium
sqijā fem thorn spīna
sredhō intr sredh / sret billow aestuō
sremsō intr AIa fray diffilor
srenkō intr AIa snore sternuō
srewō intr AIa flow fluō
srewtis fem quoque srwtis strom fluxus
471
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
srīgējō sta be cold frigeō
srīgos neu es cold frīgus
sr̥ kijō tr repair sarciō
srodhos mas sea heaviness aestūs maritimī
sroknā fem beak rostrum
srowmos mas srowos, srewmṇ stream cursus
srunghos mas snout proboscis
srwtom neu pipe fistula
sr̥ pā fem sickle falcicula
sr̥ pjō tr cut off putō
sr̥ wājō tr observe seruō
ṛ sicut twṛkos et non
sr̥ wos mas guardian custōs
er sicut kerwos
steH2ti- / stH2ti-;
stətis fem standing post statiō
stātis
stətus mas position status
stādhlom neu stall stābulum
stagnom neu pond lacus
remain
stagō sta remaneō
(water)
staknom neu pool stagnum
stālos mas couch solium
(sí)stāmi intr BIIa steH2; stístāmi stand stō
(sí)stāmi
sta advantage praestō
antí/prāi
(sí)stāmi apó intr be far distō
steH2-mṇ /
stāmn̥ neu arrangement institūtiō
stoH2-mo-
stānejō tr AIIIo place condō
stānom neu place locus
stārós adI stərós stable stābilis
stātlom neu platform catasta
staurejō tr AIIIo set instaurō
stauros mas stoH2u-ro stake adminiculum
staurós adI stūrós staked adminiculātus
stāwō tr AIa stop dētineō
steighō intr AIa walk ambulō
steipēts fem (steiptós) stick stīpēs
plough
steiwā fem stīua
handle
stejō inc AIa condense spissō
stejsjā fem icicle stīria
stelghmi tr BIa (s)tel-gh; cf. stelō flatten pauiō
stelghō intr AIa flow down dēfluō
stelō tr put pōnō
stelōn (stélenos) cf. tálejā offshoot stolō
stelpō intr AIa stare intueor
stembhō tr AIa cf. tembhō stamp on conculcō
stemō intr stumble titubō
sterbhnjom neu dry skin pellis sicca
sterbhō intr AIa decline decadō
stergō tr AIa love amō
472
 Appendix II: Late Indo-European Lexicon
sterkō tr AIa, BIa sterkmi befoul coinquinō
sterkos neu es shit stercus
stēr mas (stros) H2ster-; steros, sterlā star stella
sternom neu entrails intestina
sternós adI sterH1-nó/ sterH1-yó rigid rigidus
sterō tr AIa rob fūror
stérolis adI sterile sterilis
steros mas H2ster- star stella
stērps mas (stṛpos) trunk stirps
stertō intr AIa snore stertō
stertos mas pinnacle pinaculus
push away
steugō tr AIa (s)H2teu-g abigō
(to)
steumi tr inform ēnuntiō
steupō tr AIa hit quatiō
steutō tr AIa support sustineō
stigājō tr prickle instigō
stiprós adI safe secūrus
stlāmn̥ neu plate lamina
stlātos mas s-tlH2-to side latus
stlītis fem ej (s)H2lei-t/s legal suit līs
stlokos mas place locus
stm̥nos mas trunk truncus
stn̥ tējō sta be delayed moror
stobhos mas pillar sublicā
stoghos mas trestle uara
stoighos mas street uia
stoipejō cau AIIIo densifiy stīpō
ruler (in
stolbos mas uirga
topography)
stolgos mas force uis
stōlos; stel > stolo-;
stolos mas table mensa
steH2 + lo > stōlo-
stōmn̥ neu es palate palātum
stopejō tr block interclūdō
straighten
storejō cau AIIIo corrigō
(to)
stornjā fem centre centrum
stornos mas (H2)st(o)r-no- starling sturnus
stoudjom neu study studium
stoupā fem oakum stūpā
stōwejō cau AIIIo stoHw2-eje/o stop dētineō
strāmn̥ neu lay strām∂n
strātos mas army exercitus
strātós adI strH2-tó spread strātus
streibā fem line linea
streidō dur AIa streid / streig hiss stridō
streigō tr AIa strip off stringō
streigs fem (strigós) night bird strīx
strengō AIa restrict obstringō
strengom string corda
strēnwos adI active strēnuus
473
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
strepō intr AIa make noise strepō
streubhō tr AIa make bitter acerbō
streudō dur AIa fight certō
strewō tr AIa str-w strew sternō
strigājō intr stop strigō
strigjā fem line stria
stringō tr AVIa draw tight stringō
str̥ neumi intr BIVb pster sneeze sternuō
str̥ nō tr s-trH3 spread sternō
str̥ nō prō tr spread out prosternō
str̥ nos mas extension strātus
strudsmā fem pipe canna
strutjos mas ancestor abauus
struwis fem ej heap struēs
studējō sta thrash studeō
stupējō sta rigid (to be) stupeō
stupos mas stick pālus
sū lois H1su-(H) well benē
sudhjom mas beer zythum
súghoris adI ej súgh∂ris grātus gracious
sujō tr spill effundō
sūkós mas piglet porcellus
suljā fem dregs colluuiēs
súnoros mas vigorous uiridis
sūnús mas ew son fīlius
sup ind under sub
supā fem soup ius
supājō tr throw iaciō
(s)úperi ind tab over super
(s)úperos adI tab superior superior
(s)upmos sup. uppest summus
sūs mas (suwós) suH-; sews pig sūs
susājō intr buzz susurrō
H2sus- / H2suso /
susdos mas H2susk(w)o-/ dry siccus
H2susdo-/H2souso-
susjō tr H2sus- dry siccō
sūtus mas birth partus
suwids adI expert doctus
swl̥HeH1, inc.
be swollen
swəlējō tr sw∂lēskō, caus. tumeō
(to)
swolējō
swərjō tr cf. swerō swear iurō
swādejō cau AIIIo recommend suādeō
swādús adI sweH2d-u-; swādus pleasant suauis
swāi ind so sīc
swālikos adII as big tam magnus
become
swēdhskō inc suēscō
accustomed
swēdhus fem ew custom mos
sweidō blaze flagrō
sweidos neu es star sīdus
474
 Appendix II: Late Indo-European Lexicon
sweighlājō intr whistle sībilō
sweigō prog AIa seesaw oscillō
sweisdō AIa whistle siffilō
swekō intr AIa smell good fragrō
swekos adI fragrant fragrant
swékuros mas father-in-law socer
mother-in-
swekrús fem ew swekrúH2 socrus
law
swelā fem sunlight aprīcum
swelājō tr devour (to) uorō
swelāks mas (swélakos) seal phoca
sweljos mas relative familiāris
swelō intr AIa glare splendeō
swelom neu sleeper trauersa
swelplos neu es sulphur sulpur
swemōr dur be followed secūtus ueniō
swenH; swenō,
swénāmi intr BIIIa swonājō caus./iter. sound sonō
<*swonHejō
swendhō prog AIa s-wndh swindle dēcrēscō
swepō dur AIa sleep dormiō
swepr̥ neu (swépenos) dream somnium
swerbhō inc AIa swr-bh turn gyrescō
swerghō tr AIa take care cūrō
swerō intr AIa cf. sw∂rjō whisper susurrō
swērús adI swērus important sērius
swerwos adI snappy transpuntorius
swesōr fem er sister soror
swesreinos mas sister's son sobrīnus
swīnós adII porcine porcīnus
swoidājō intr swidjō sweat sūdō
swoidos mas sweat sūdor
swólejā fem ground solea
swombhós mas fungus fungus
swonos mas swonós ? noise sonus
swōpijō cau swōpjō, swōpejō cause to sleep sōpiō
swoplom neu broom euerriculum
swopnjājō intr cog. dream somniō
swopnjom neu dream somnium
swopnos mas sleep somnus
sworā fem wade sūra
swordis fem ej rubbish sordēs
sworēx (sworkós) shrew sorēx
sworos mas stick pālus
swr̥ neumi tr BIVb wound uulnerō
swrswrājō intr whisper susurrō
təkējō inc silent (to be) taceō
*tm̥H-i̯é-, tm̥H-sk̑é-;
təmjai intr faint concidō
pf. *te-tómH/tm̥H-
təreumi tr BIIIb overcome superō
tādējō tr qualify qualificō
tādhēskō intr cf. títāmi melt tābēscō
475
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
tādhis fem ej tH2-dh/k/w thaw tābēs
tagjō tr put in order ordinō
taismos mas dough massa
tājō tr steal fūror
tājús mas ew tātis burglar fūr
tálejā fem cf. stelōn stab talea
tālis adII such tālis
tām ind at that point tam
tarsós mas belly uenter
tárudos adI slow tardus
tātā neu dad pappa
tauros mas bull taurus
tausnim ind silently silenter
tausos adI silent silens
tā́ wn̥ tos pron so much tantus
tēglā fem tegdhlā tile tēgula
tegnom neu beam tignum
tegō tr cover tegō
tegos neu es shrine aedicula
tegtom neu ceiling tectum
tegús adI tegus dense crēber
teibhjā fem shin-bone tībia
teknom neu creature crātūra
tekō tr AIb receive accipiō
tekslā fem axe secūris
teksnā fem technique ars
teksō tr AIa tek(s) fashion fabricor
tekstā fem bowl testa
tekstlom neu web tēla
tekwos neu es trail iter
tekwō intr AIa tHk-w run away ēcurrō
telmṓ n neu tel-H2-mon- strap infula
telpō intr AIa get in a space locus mihi est
telH2o-, telH2mōn
telsus fem ew ground tellus
(télH2menos)
(s)tem-b(h); cf.
tembhō tr AIa spurn contemnō
stembhō
temesras fem pl. darkness tenebrae
temlom neu temH-lo /temH-no temple templum
temos neu es obscurity obscuritās
tēmos mas drunken ēbrius
tempos neu es time tempus
tēn mas tenos continuity continuitās
tenā fem ribbon taenia
tendō tr extend tendō
tenghō tr AIa drag away abstrahō
tengō tr AIa impregnate tingō
teni ind tenos until tenus
tenjō tr AIa extend prolongō
tenjom neu temple tempus
temkō prog tm̥nekmi result ēueniō
tenos neu es ligament ligāmen
476
 Appendix II: Late Indo-European Lexicon
tensō extend prōtēlō
tentrom neu string fūnis
tepējō sta AIIIe be warm tepeō
teplós adI warm tepidus
tepnos neu es fever febris
teqom neu passage trāiectiō
tercō tr AIa threaten minor
téredhrom neu terH1(e)tro- auger terebra
tergō tr AIa *trigwō ? cf. gr. tribw wipe tergō
tergslom neu towel mantellum
terjō tr rub teirō
termēn mas (terṃnós) end terminus
terō tr BIVb trHw1; tṛneumi cross transeō
terpō intr AIa enjoy oneself oblector
terptis fem jo quoque tṛptis enjoyment delectātiō
tersā fem earth terra
tersai intr get dry serescō
térunos adI teren feeble tener
tetkōn mas (tétkenos) woodworker lignārius
tettā fem teat tetta
téturos mas turkey pauō
teukmn̥ neu progeny progeniēs
teukō AIa dig out effodiō
teupō inc AIa knee genuflector
teurō tr AIa stop up obtūrō
teusmn̥ neu lot cumulus
teutā fem teuteH2 people populus
tewai tr observe tueor
tewos neu es force impetus
tibhjā neu stalk tibia
timējō tr be afraid metuō
tínāmi intr teiH1; tı̄́neumi tr. melt liquefiō
teH2(i)-, cf.
títāmi intr melt liquefiō
tādhēskō
títermi tr BIIe explain explicō
titijō intr chirp titiō
tkeimi tr Bid establish condō
tlāmi sta telH2; cf. tḷnō, tḷnāmi endure resistō
tlātjos adI patient patiens
tl̥ijō sta rest requiescō
telH2; tḷnāmi; cf,
tl̥nō tr raise tollō
tlāmi
tloqai intr speak loquor
tmāmi tr temH1 cut secō
lacte
tm̥klos adI curdled milk
coagulātum
tm̥ktos adI clotted concrētus
tm̥pus adI elastic diffusilis
tn̥ ējō sta tr comprehend teneō
tn̥ ghus adI cf. tenghō heavy grauis
tn̥ gō tr teH1g touch tangō
tn̥ tos adI stretched tentus
477
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
tn̥ us adI tnH2-u- thin tenuis
togā́ fem garment toga
toi ind certainly profectō
tōkslos mas hatchet bipennis
tk-so, tok-so, tkwso-,
toksos fem juniper iuniperus
tokw-so ?
tokwós adI fugacious fugax
tolājō tr call for aduocō
tolkos mas bran furfur
tom ind then tum
tom-ke ind then tunc
tomos mas cut sectiō
(s)tenH2/ (s)tonH2
tónāmi intr BIIIa (s)tenō, (s)tonājō resonate tonō
<(s)tonH2ejō iter.
tondejō tr AIIIo shave tondeō
tonejō tr AIIIo extend (to) extendō
give one's
tongejō tr AIIIo opīnor
opinion
tonslis fem fierceness tūlēs
tonstṓr adII jo hairdresser tonsōr
tóntenos mas noise strepitus
tontrom neu thunder tonitrus
topnos mas warmth tepor
toqe ind also quoque
torcós adI threatening minax
tori ind therefore propterea
tension
tórkmn̥ tom neu tormentum
(engine)
tormos mas torHw1mo- bolt cnōdax
torós adI torHw1o- loud penetrans
torpejō cau AIIIo rejoice delectō
torqejō cau AIIIo turn torqueō
torqis fem ej necklace torquēs
torsejō cau AIIIo dry torreō
torsmn̥ neu thunder tonitrum
tot(j)oi adII so many tot
totrēd ind towards there eō
totrōd ind from there inde
toughā́ fem luck fortūna
touknā fem thigh perna
trabhis fem ej beam trabs
traghō tr drag trahō
traghsmā fem weft trāma
trāntis ind through trāns
trebhō sta AIa trb(h) dwell habitō
tregsnos mas brave audāx
treikō sta trei(H)k be mistaken errō
treistis adI sad tristis
num tab. fem. quoque
trejes trija tisres three trēs
dec trísores
tréjesdekm̥ num trídekm̥ thirteen trēdecim
478
 Appendix II: Late Indo-European Lexicon
tréjesdekəmos adII trídek∂mos thirteenth trēdecimus
tremō dur AIa tremble tremō
trenkō tr AIa incite incitō
trepō intr AIa shiver tremō
trepō tr AIa trample calcō
trepō intr Aia turn uertor
tresō intr AVIII shiver tremō
treudō cau AIa force in intrūdō
treughos adI miserable miser
treukō tr AIa cut out abscindō
trídkm̥təmos adII thirtieth tricesimus
trídkm̥ta num tridkm̥t-/tridkont- thirty trigintā
three
trikm̥témtəmos adII tricentesimus
hundredth
num trikm̥tóm (ind.) + three
trikm̥tṓs trecentī
dec gen. hundred
tríjətos mas sea mare
triplós adII threefold triple
trípl̥tis fem triplication triplicātiō
trīs ind three times ter
trisnōs three in a go trīnī
tristis adII ej witness testis
tritjos adII third tertius
trītós adI triH-tó rubbed trītus
tr̥ mēts fem (tṛmtos) wedge cuneus
tr̥ mos mas termite tarmes
tr̥ nā fem thorn spīna
troghos mas posterity subolēs
trogjā fem sow porca
trogos mas pig porcus
tropos mas way uia
trosejō intr AIIIo make afraid terreō
troughi ind alas uae
trowā fem ladle trua
trowō tr AIId treuH, treH1u gnaw away corrōdō
tr̥ knō tr AVId tr̥ kneumi allow sinō
tr̥ pējō sta torpid (to be) torpeō
tr̥ pis adI ugly turpis
tr̥ sdos mas thrush turdus
tr̥ sējō sta tṛsyō be thirsty sitiō
tr̥ stis fem thirst sitis
tr̥ stos adI dry siccus
tr̥ sus adI dry siccus
trudskā fem leprosy leprae
trudsmós adI annoying molestus
truks epi (trukós) slaughterer interfector
tū pron (tewe) you tū
tūljom neu tuHljo- multitude multitūdō
tūlós adI swollen tumidus
tumējō sta be swollen tumeō
tumlós mas mound tumulus
túmolos mas turmoil tumultus
479
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
tundō tr strike tundō
turgējō sta swell turgeō
tūrjós mas cheese caseus
tursis fem ej tower turris
rejoice
tusjai intr delector
oneself
tustjós
tuskjós neu desert desertum
(teusqa -ōm ?)
tusnā fem wave unda
tustijō intr cough tussiō
tustis fem ej coughing tussis
twakos neu es armour armatūra
twengh; twn̥ ghjō,
twenghō tr AIa twn̥ ghskō; twenk- force compellō
<reform. twenghti-
twerō tr AIa enclose amplexor
twoisós adI violent uiolentus
twr̥ bhōn mas (twṛbhnos) whirl turbō
twr̥ kos mas boar aper
twr̥ mā fem troop turma
twr̥ tos adI quick uelox
H1ugw/H1eugw/H1ue
ucējō sta wet (be) ūmeō
gw
oucós adI H1ougw- / H1uogw- wet ūdus
ud neu out ex
úderos mas uter úterus
H1uHdh-r̥ /n /
ūdhr̥ neu (ūdhenos) udder ūber
HeHw1dh-r̥ /n
ūdhros adI udder ūber
udhús adI udhus immediate immediātus
udsqe ind on top insuper
uksḗ n and (uksnós) H2uksen- ox bos
uksōr fem (úkseros) wife uxor
ululājō intr howl ululō
unksrā fem unksnā shadow umbra
upelos adI H2wp-elo bad malus
úperesū ind very well optimē
uperi ind H2u-per over super
úperos adI high superus
upo ind under sub
upóqrijom neu commission interpretium
upósēdjom neu fundament fundamentum
upóstānom neu service seruitium
úpselos adI upsēlós high altus
upsi ind above supra
uqnós mas cf. auqslā oven fornus
urús adI H1ur-u; urus wide amplus
ustós adI H1us-to- burnt ustus
uta ind rather potius
wədrā fem otter lutra
wədris mas leather bag uter
wəgājai intr roam uagor
480
 Appendix II: Late Indo-European Lexicon
wəleiqos neu es liquid liquor
wəleisō tr AIa beat uerberō
(H)wlH2; cf.
wəlējō sta be fit ualeō
w∂ldhēyō
wəlepējō sta whip lepeō
H2welH1; welH3 cf.
wəleumi tr BIIIb pillage diripiō
weldō
wəlewā fem lion leō
wəlōrom neu strap lōrum
wəlos mas wl̥Ho- leader dux
w(o)rHo-; cf.
wəros mas pimple uarus
wersmn̥
wəregis mas enclosure clausūra
wəreikā fem veil rīca
wərikjō tr bend flectō
wəroikos mas bend anfractus
wəréikonjom neu webbing ricinium
wəreinā fem Hwr harn urīna
wərējai tr respect uereor
wərēn mas (wr̥ nos) wr̥ H1en lamb ueruēx
wəreumi tr BIIIb werjō, wṛneumi close claudō
werjō apo, wṛneumi
wəreumi apo tr BIIIb open aperiō
apo
wərbhis fem ei cf. werpō perimeter circumductus
wərjō tr set fire accendō
wərughis mas ej rye sēcale cereāle
wadhis mas ej caution uas
wadhō intr gwadh? walk uādō
wadhom neu ghwdhó- river ford uadum
wageinā fem sheath uagīna
wāghijō intr cry uāgiō
wag/weH2g; wagjō,
wágneumi tr BIVb, AIVe cleave disrumpō
caus. wāgejō
wai ind alas uae
wailos mas humble humilis
wailós mas wolf lupus
wakkā fem cow uacca
walgos adI bandy-legged ualgus
walnom neu wall uallum
walóm intr (aor. a chenmi) died mortus est
wapējō sta foggy, to be nebulosus sum
waplājō sta scream clamō
asunder-
wāros mas uārus
legged
wāstos adI empty uānus
wātis mas ej poet uatēs
watjos adI legbent uatius
we encl or ue
wēbēn mas (webnós) weapon arma
webhō tr Hwebh weave texō
break
wēdhājō tr wēdhaH2je/o- effodiō
through
481
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
wédhneumi tr BIVb link ligō
wedhnom neu wedhmnom ? dowry dōs
wedhō tr wHedh / Hwedh lead addūcō
wedhr̥ neu wédhenos weapon arma
wedhrom neu weather tempus
wedhskō tr wedhH1 strike caedō
wedmn̥ neu utterance locūtiō
wedō tr AIb H2wed(H) tell narrō
wedrom neu bucket situlus
be active,
wegējō sta AIIIe uigeō
flourish
weghjā fem way uia
weghmi tr Bia H2wegh- stab fodicō
weghō tr carry uehō
weghtis fem jo leuer uectis
weghtlom neu vehicle uehiculum
weghtṓ r mas transporter uector
wegō cau Aib, AIIIo wogejō enliven uegeō
wegō tr AIb weave texō
wiedr̥ /wéiden
weidr̥ neu beast bestia
os
weidhō tr AIa (d)wi-dhH1; widhjō divide dīuidō
weidos neu es presence praesentia
mas/
weiks (wikós) cf. woikos house domus
fem
wéiktomā fem victim uictima
(wí)weimi tr BIId hunt uēnor
weimn̥ neu en loom textrīnum
weipō cau AIa cf. wipjō wave uibrō
weiros mas weiH1ro-, wiH1ró wire fūnis
weis neu (wīsós) weiH-s/os/es strength uis
weisnā fem vein uēna
weisō sta AIa flow fluō
weitēks fem (weitkós) agnus castus uitēx
weitis fem ej wH1i-ti- vine uītis
weitō cau AIa arch incuruō
wéiwersā fem ferret uiuerra
wejes / weje pron wei-; tab we nōs
wekmi tr desire desiderō
wekō intr AIb wek, wenk arch flectō
weksós adI convex conuexus
(H)wel(H3); cf.
weldō tr tear off uellō
wəḷeumi
welīks fem (welikós) wḷēiks bracelet armilla
weljṓ s comp sup. wélistos better melior
welmi tr BIa welH1 will uolō
welnā fem wḷnā wave unda
welnos neu es hair uellus
welō tr AIb see uideō
welpō tr AIa expect expectō
weltis fem wḷtis will uoluntās
wélwm̥en neu wrapping tegmen
482
 Appendix II: Late Indo-European Lexicon
welwō tr H1wl-w turn uoluō
wélwtrom neu envelope inuolūcrum
wémāmi tr vomit uomō
(ı̄́)wēmi tr BIIb H2weH1 blow exhalō
wḗnāmoi tr aspire appetō
wendhō intr AIa attack oppugnō
wenēsnom neu love potion uenēnum
wenjā fem wenH1-iH2; wenī delight deliciae
wenH1; desid. wiwn̥ -
wenō tr desire concupiscō
H1-se/o
wenos neu es love amor
wenseikā fem blister uensīca
equipped
went suff wentjos praeditus
with
H2weH1-ṇto- /
wentos mas wind uentus
H2wH1ento-
weqtis fem thing rēs
weqtlom neu expression dictus
wēr neu (wṛos) door forēs
wēr mas wēros favour fauor
werbos neu es H1wr-b whip flagellum
wereinā fem sect secta
wergō sta AIa turn rotō
wergom neu work labos
weri neu Hwr; wēr, wēri water aqua
werjō tr werH1 name nōminō
(wí)wermi tr BIIe find inueniō
wernā fem alder betullla
wēros adI true uērus
werpō tr AIa wrap out ēuoluō
wersis mas ej cf. r̥ sēn male mās
wersmn̥ neu en cf. w∂ros wart uerrūca
wersō tr AIa drag uerrō
werstis fem track trames
werstidhlom neu hall uestibulum
wertmn̥ neu direction directiō
wertos mas value ualor
wertrom neu defence dēfensiō
belt (for
wérunos mas cinctus
safety)
weskai neu eat uescor
wēskō tr squeeze exprimō
wésnāmi tr BIVa prick instigō
wesnejō tr AIIIo bargain negotior
wesnom neu sale uēnum
H2wes; cf. awō
wesō sta AIb stay maneō
<*H2ew-
wésolis adI cheap uīlis
*we- 'exclūsīuum'
we-skw(e)ro- /
wespros mas evening uesper
wesp(e)ro- /
wekero-
483
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
(wesenós /
wesr̥ neu spring uēr
wesentós/)
wēsros mas morning matina
westā fem food pulmentum
westijō tr wesmi; cf. wosējō dress uestiō
westis fem jo cloth uestis
westos mas feast daps
westrom neu cloth uestis
H2wes-tu-, H2wos-tu;
westus mas dwelling domicilium
wostus
H1wesu-; wesu-
wēsus adI /wēsu-/wosu-; excellent excellens
we-H1su?
wétāmi tr *we- exclūsīuum forbid uetō
wetlos mas calf uitulus
wetos neu es time tempus
one-year annucula
wetsós wes
creature creātūra
wetwos adI es old uetus
wī ind asunder sē
widā́ fem appearance appārentia
widējō tr weidmi ? see uideō
wídhewā fem H1wídheweH2 widow uidua
widhus fem willow salīx
widjom fem widjā wisdom scientia
widris adI wise doctus
wijējō sta weH1i be curved uieō
wijēskō inc wither uiēscō
wikis fem ej chance uicis
wikjō dur contend certō
wikkā fem witch uenēfica
wíklutom adII widely known satis constans
windō tr AVIb find out comperiō
windō peri fac investigate inuestigō
windos adI apparent appararens
winis fem cable cable
winkijō tr shackle uinciō
winkō tr win uincō
winsō tr AVIa cause causō
wikwos adI diverse multifārius
wipjō tr cf. weipō wrap inuoluō
wiprós adI waving uibrans
wiHró-, weiHro-,
wīrós mas man uir
woiHro-
wisējō sta sprout uireō
wiskom neu wikskom? mistletoe uiscum
wísogā fem club uirga
wistós adII seen uisus
witājō intr turn around circumeō
supplementar complementāriu
wíteros adI
y s
wītjā́ fem wHi- framework textus
484
 Appendix II: Late Indo-European Lexicon
witjom neu curve curua
witus mas cf. kantos wheelrim cantus
wíweqmi tr BIIe speak loquor
wl̥bhontis mas H1wlb(h)o-nt- camel camēlus
wl̥dā́ fem feast conuiuium
(H)wlH2dh; cf.
wl̥dhējō tr rule imperō
wḷēyō
wl̥ghis fem basin uallis
wl̥iqējō sta liquid (to be) liqueō
wl̥nā fem H2/3wlH1-neH2 wool lāna
wl̥qos mas wolf lupus
wl̥tis fem tuff of hair caesariēs
wl̥tus mas impression adspectus
wn̥ dā fem wave unda
complexed
wn̥ ghējō sta tortus sum
(to be)
wn̥ mos adI wn̥ Hmo- beautiful pulcher
wn̥ skā fem desire dēsiderium
wn̥ skō tr desire dēsiderō
wochējō tr H1ewgwh / H1wegwh vow uoueō
wodā́ fem water aqua
wodr̥ neu (wédenos) wedṛ water aqua
woghejō cau AIIIo induce (to) addūcō
woghnos mas car uehiculum
woghos mas transport uectiō
wogsejō cau cf. augejō make grow augeō
wogsmis mas ploughshare uomer
woida tr know sciō
woidejō cau AIIIo orient dirigō
woidlos mas woH1i- basket uīdulus
woidwṓ s adII (woidwesos) fem: widw∂syā knowing conscius
woighos fem elm ulmus
woikā́ fem vigour uigor
woikos mas cf. weiks village uīcus
woikós adI wikrós steadfast peruicax
woikslā fem farm uilla
woinā́ fem fault culpa
woinos mas weinom wine uīnum
woisos mas poison uenēnum
woitā fem hunt uēnātus
wolējō tr choose ēligō
wolgos neu es people uulgus
wolmos mas roll spīra
H2wolH1nos,
wolnos neu es wound uulnus
H2wlH1nos
wolos mas wōlos choice ēlectiō
wolós mas willing uolens
wolpis fem ej fox uulpēs
wolsom neu damage perniciēs
wolwós adI wōlós round rotundus
wondhejō cau AIIIo wind torqueō
wondhos wondhsos hair caesariēs
485
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
wōnós adI empty uānus
wopjā fem water aqua
wopsā fem wop-seH2 wasp uespa
woqs fem (weqs) voice uox
worghós mas criminal scelestus
worgjom neu cannabis cannabis
wormis mas worm uermis
wornos mas colour color
wornos fem wornā raven coruus
worós mas policeman tresuir
wortejō cau AIIIo invert (to) inuertō
wosejō tr AIIIo cf. westijō dress uestiō
wosis mas H1ws turban tiara
wosmós adI wet madidus
wospos mas garment indūmentum
wr̥ aghmn̥ neu backbone spīna
wr̥ dhom neu wṛH1-dhH1o- word uerbum
wrH2d-iH2; cf
wr̥ djā fem root rādix
wṛādēiks
wr̥ gā fem vigor uigor
attack (to be
wr̥ gējō sta urgeō
in)
tr/int
wr̥ gjō work laborō
r
wr̥ gos wrH-go- attack impetus
wr̥ ijō tr close claudō
wr̥ isdējō intr laugh rīdeō
wr̥ kājō intr cry urcō
wr̥ nāmi tr BIVa persecute persequor
wr̥ n̥gai intr grumble ringor
wəronkā́ fem hand manus
wəronkis fem dip fouea
(wṛādikós, wrH2d-eiH-;
wr̥ ādīks fem root rādix
wṛādijós) cf.wṛdyā
H2wrs; worsos,
wr̥ stā fem rain pluuia
worsā
wr̥ stis fem turn uersiō
wr̥ stos mas row uersus
wr̥ tō tr AIIh turn uertō
wr̥ tom neu enclosure saepimen

486
 APPENDIX III: IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS
III.1. ROOT NOUNS
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
pod gwou leuk wōq nāu kwon mēns
foot cow light voice ship dog month
Nom. pā́ t gaúḥ ruk vā́ k náuḥ śvā́ mā́ ḥ
Voc. gauḥ ruk vāk nauḥ śvan
Acc. pā́ dam gā́ m rucam vā́ cam nāvam śvā́ nam
Ins. padā́ gávā rucā vācā nāvā́ śúnā māsā́
Dat. padé gáve ruce vāce nāve śune māse
Abl. padáḥ góḥ rucaḥ vācáḥ nāváh śúnaḥ māsaḥ
Gen. padaḥ góḥ rucaḥ vācáḥ nāváh śúnaḥ māsaḥ
Loc. padi gavi ruci vāci nāvi śuni māsi

Nom. gāvau rucau vācau nāvau śvānau

Voc. gāvau rucau vācau nāvau śvānau
Acc. gāvau rucau vācau nāvau śvānau
Ins. padbhyām gobhyām rugbhyām vāgbhyām naubhyām śvabhyām mābhyām |
mādbhyām
Dat. padbhyām gobhyām rugbhyām vāgbhyām naubhyām śvabhyām mādbhyām
Abl. padbhyām gobhyām rugbhyām vāgbhyām naubhyām śvabhyām mādbhyām
Gen. padoḥ gavoḥ rucoḥ vācoḥ nāvoḥ śunoḥ māsoḥ
Loc. padoḥ gavoḥ rucoḥ vācoḥ nāvoḥ śunoḥ māsoḥ

Nom. gā́ vas rucaḥ vācaḥ nā́ vah śvānaḥ

Voc. gāvaḥ rucaḥ vācaḥ nāvaḥ śvānaḥ
Acc. padáh gāḥ rucaḥ vācaḥ nāvaḥ śunaḥ mā́ sah
Ins. padbhiḥ góbhiḥ rugbhiḥ vāgbhiḥ naubhíh śvábhiḥ mādbhíh
Dat. padbhyaḥ gobhyaḥ rugbhyaḥ vāgbhyaḥ naubhyaḥ śvabhyaḥ mādbhyaḥ
Abl. padbhyaḥ gobhyaḥ rugbhyaḥ vāgbhyaḥ naubhyaḥ śvabhyaḥ mādbhyaḥ
Gen. padām gavām rucām vācām nāvām śunām māsām
Loc. patsu goṣu rukṣu vākṣu nauṣu śvasu māḥsu

pēs bōs lux uox nāuis canis mensis

pedis bouis lūcis uōcis nāuis canis mensis

Nom. πούς βοῦς ἀνήρ ὄψ ναῦς κύων μήν, μείς

Gen. ποδός βοός ἀνδρός ὀπός νεώς κυνὸς μηνός
Dat. ποδί βοΐ ἀνδρί ὀπί νηΐ κυνὶ μηνί;
Acc. πόδᾰ βοῦν ἄνδρα ὄπα ναῦν κύνα
Voc. πούς βοῦ ἄνερ ναῦ κύον
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
Nom. πόδε βόε νῆε
Gen. ποδοῖν
Dat. ποδοῖν βοοῖν νεοῖν
Acc. πόδε

Nom. πόδες βόες ἄνδρες νῆες κύνες

Gen. ποδῶν βοῶν ἀνδρῶν νεῶν κυνῶν μηνῶν
Dat. ποσί(ν) βουσί(ν) ἀνδράσι(ν) ναυσί(ν) κυσὶ
Acc. πόδᾰς βοῦς ἄνδρας ναῦς κύνας

nom. sg. patas/patis *guwau-

acc. sg. patan
gen. sg. patas
dat.-loc. pati
sg.
acc. pl. pātuš < *pód-ms
gen. pl. patān < *pd-óm
dat-loc. patā <*pdós
pl.

8 9 10 11 12 13 14
suH mūs<*muHs djeuH judh kerd weik dheghom
pig mouse daylight combat heart house earth
Nom. sū́ ḥ mū́ ṭ dyáuḥ yut hā́ rdi, viṭ kṣám,
(su)-hā́ rt kṣáh
Voc. sū́ ḥ mū́ ṭ dyaùḥ yut viṭ kṣám
Acc. suvam muṣam dy'aam | yudham viśam kṣám
divam
Ins. suvā muṣā divā́ yudhā́ hṛdā viśā kṣamā́ ,
jmá
Dat. suvai | suve muṣe dyave | divé yudhe hṛdé viśe kṣé
Abl. suvāḥ | suvaḥ muṣaḥ dyóḥ | diváḥ yudhaḥ hṛdá ḥ viśaḥ jmás,
kṣmás
Gen. suvāḥ | suvaḥ muṣaḥ dyóḥ | diváḥ yudhaḥ hṛdá ḥ viśaḥ jmás,
kṣmás
Loc. suvi | suvām muṣi dyávi | diví yudhi hṛdí viśi kṣámi

Nom. suvau muṣau dyāvau | yudhau viśau kṣā́ mā

divau
Voc. suvau muṣau yudhau viśau kṣā́ mā
Acc. suvau muṣau dyāvau | yudhau viśau kṣā́ mā
divau
Ins. sūbhyām muḍbhyām yudbhyām hṛdbhyām viḍbhyām
Dat. sūbhyām muḍbhyām yudbhyām hṛdbhyām viḍbhyām

488
 Appendix III: In-Depth Analysis
Abl. sūbhyām muḍbhyām yudbhyām hṛdbhyām viḍbhyām
Gen. suvoḥ muṣoḥ yudhoḥ hṛdoḥ viśoḥ
Loc. suvoḥ muṣoḥ yudhoḥ hṛdoḥ viśoḥ

Nom. suvaḥ muṣaḥ dyāvaḥ | yudhaḥ viśaḥ kṣāmas

divaḥ
Voc. suvaḥ muṣaḥ divaḥ yudhaḥ viśaḥ kṣāmas
Acc. suvaḥ muṣaḥ divaḥ yudhaḥ hṛdaḥ viśaḥ kṣā́ s
Ins. sūbhiḥ muḍbhiḥ dyúbhiḥ yudbhiḥ hṛdbhíḥ viḍbhiḥ
Dat. sūbhyaḥ muḍbhyaḥ dyubhyaḥ yudbhyaḥ hṛdbhyaḥ viḍbhyaḥ
Abl. sūbhyaḥ muḍbhyaḥ dyubhyaḥ yudbhyaḥ hṛdbhyaḥ viḍbhyaḥ
Gen. sūnām | suvām muṣām divām yudhām hṛdām viśām
Loc. sūṣu muṭsu dyuṣu yutsu hṛtsú viṭsu kṣā́ su

sūs mūs diēs nox cor uīcus humus

suis mūris diei/Iouis noctis cordis uicī humī

Nom. ὗς σῦς μῦς Ζεὺς νύξ κῆρ < κέαρ οἶκος χθών
Gen. συός μυός Διὸς νυκτός κῆρος: χθονὸς
Dat. Διὶ νυκτί κῆρι χθονὶ
Acc. ὗν, σῦν μῦν Δία νύκτα κῆρ < κέαρ χθόνα
Voc. μῦ Ζεῦ κῆρ < κέαρ

Nom.
Gen.
Dat.
Acc.

Nom. ὕες, σύες μύες, μῦες νύκτες

Gen. ὑῶν, συῶν νυκτῶν
Dat. (σ)υσί, (σ)ύεσσι μυσί
Acc. ὕας, σύας μύας νύκτας

nom. šiwaz ne-ku-uz ka-ra-az tekan n.,

sg. (nekuz) (karts) gen.
acc.
sg.
gen. šiwattaš nekuz kar-di-aš taknas
sg.
dat.-
loc.
sg.
acc.
pl.
489
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
gen.
pl.
dat-
loc.
pl.

15 16 17 18 19 20 21
rēg ap sneich j(e)uHs neuk gheim op
king water snow broth nut winter wealth
Nom. rā́ ṭ yū́ ṣ himá -, hé man á pnas-
Voc. rā́ ṭ
Acc. rājam
Ins. rājā
Dat. rāje
Abl. rājaḥ
Gen. rājaḥ
Loc. rāji

Nom. rājau
Voc. rājau
Acc. rājau
Ins. rāḍbhyām
Dat. rāḍbhyām
Abl. rāḍbhyām
Gen. rājoḥ
Loc. rājoḥ

Nom. rājaḥ āpaḥ

Voc. rājaḥ āpaḥ
Acc. rājaḥ apaḥ
Ins. rāḍbhiḥ adbhiḥ
Dat. rāḍbhyaḥ adbhyaḥ
Abl. rāḍbhyaḥ adbhyaḥ
Gen. rājām apām
Loc. rāṭsu apsu

rex rōs nix iūs nux hiems ops

rēgis rōris nivis iūris nucis hiemis opis

Nom. χείρ *νίψ χειμάς, -ών κλώψ

Gen. χειρός κλωπός
Dat. χειρί κλωπί
Acc. χεῖρα νίφα κλῶπᾰ

490
 Appendix III: In-Depth Analysis
Voc. κλώψ

Nom. χεῖρε κλῶπε

Gen.
Dat. χεροῖν κλωποῖν
Acc.

Nom. χεῖρες κλῶπες

Gen. χερῶν, χειρῶν ib κλωπῶν
Dat. χερσί, χειρσί, κλωψί(ν)
χείρεσι
Acc. χεῖρας κλῶπᾰς

nom. keššar (ghésr̥ ) gim(a)- happar

sg.
acc. sg. kiššeran (ghsérom)
gen. sg. kiš(ša)raš (ghesrós / ghsrós)
dat.- kiš(ša)rī (ghesréi / ghsréi)
loc. sg.
acc. pl.
gen. pl.
dat-loc.
pl.

(accent position verified)

491
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
III.2. PRONOUNS

III.2.1. INDEFINITE PRONOUNS

IE Lat. Gk. Skt. Hitt.
solwom/ oljoi tōtus/ omnes ολοι sava, viśva hūmant-
qāqos quisque εκατεροσ, pratieka kuissa
εκαστοσ
qisqis quisquis τισ ο kacit kuis kuis, kuis-
quīlĭbĕt στισ δη ο kaścana as kuis,
quīvis στισ δηποτε kopi
quīviscumque οστισ ουν
qiskomqe, quiscumque τισ αν yah kaś cit kuis imma, kuis
qisimmoqe τισ εαν yo yah imma kuis, kuis-
yadanga as imma (kuis)
qéjespejoi quidam οιτινεσ katipaya
qis, edqis ecquis, aliquis, quis, anyatama kuis ki
(cf. rus. едва́ ) quispiam, τισ
aliquisquam
enis quīdam ενιοι ekaścana
somós īdem (osc. ekkum) ο αυτοσ eka (aequus), eni, uni, anni,
sama, sah eva asi
se epse, epe, ipse; arc. sapsa, εαυτοσ atman, svayam apāsila (cf. hit.
s(w)el (e)pe sumpse kinun lat. nunc)
neqis nullus, nec ουδεισ na kah UL kuiski
quisquam
álteros, alter anyatara (kuis)....kuis
ónteros
aljos*, onjos alius αλλοσ anya, itara, apara tamai-

Eng. Ger. Goth. Gael. Russ.

all alle, jeder alls u(i)le все
every one jeder ainhvarjizuh cach, cách (gal. каждый, еже--
ainhvaþaruh papon) какой ‘what,
which’
anyone jeder hvazuh duine ar bith всякий
hvarjizuh
whoever jeder der, wer sahvazuh saei cibé duine кто бы ни
auch immer
some etliche несколько
someone jemand, hvas, hvashun nech, nach, кто-нибудь, кой-
irgendeiner, etwas duine что, eтeръ
certain ein gewisser sums** áirithe некоторый
the same der selbe sama an céanna; тот же самый
himself selbst silba fessin, fadessin сам, о́нсий
>féin
none, nobody niemand, keiner (ni) hvashun ní aon duine никто
(gal. nepon)
the other one der andere an ceann eile другой, ино́й
someone else anderer aljis* aile, aill, eile (инъ)

*from aljos cf. lat. alibi, gr. αλλυδισ, got. aljaþ, etc **cf. arm. intch <*sm̥ -kwid ‘something’

492
 Appendix III: In-Depth Analysis

III.2.2. DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS

IE Lat. Gk. Skt. Hitt.

is, se is (anaf.) αυτοσ sah, esah apā
(e)ko, gho-i(ke), hic<*gho-i-ke ουτοσ ay-am, id-am, (gen. kā, eda (def)
so, eto asya -air. a + len) <*
e/ei; esah (cf. lat.
equidem)
oiso, isto, eno iste <*is-te οιοσ <*oihos ‘such’ enam (enclit.) -----
el-ne ille, ollus <el- εκεινοσ a-sau, u- apā
ne/ol-nos

Eng. Ger. Goth. Gael. Russ.

he er, der is (h)í он
this dieser hier hi-, sa(h) sin этот, сей.(ant)
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
that, yonder dieser da, jener jains (s)ut тот

493
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

III.2.3. PERSONAL PRONOUNS

SINGULAR

OSC-
IE TON. AT. LAT PTOCEL OIr I OIr D Welsh I Welsh D CORN BRET
UMB
mi,
me, mé, myvi, my,
N egṓ, egóm ego deest ----- ----- me
mesme ? meisse myvy, me
mivi
-vy, -
mi, vi,
mē ma, - -me, -
A mewom; me deest *me, *mī ----- -m- ----- vyvi,
(arc.mēd) m-, m-, ff
vivi
f(f)
mi, my,
*mewe,
mene; mo, mui, mo vy ow, ma, va;
G meī deest *mene, meu
mei muisse (len) (ecl.); - ov; -m -m
*meme
m
vy,
mi, vi,
*me, *mī, ma, - -me, -
D meghei; moi mihī deest ----- -m- ----- vyvi,
*moi m-, m-, ff
vivi
f(f)
L mei, moi mē deest ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
I mojo ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Ab med mē mehe ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
tiium, tú, ti, tydi,
N tū tū *tū, tustu ----- ----- ty, te te
tiú tussu tidi
di, dy,
tiu, -te, -
tewom; de, -de; -z-,
A tē tiom, *tu ----- -t- ----- ta, th-,
t(w)e dydi, -t
tio, teio -s
dydy
tuvai
'tuae',
tui; adj. dy the; - da
tewe; t(w)o, tuua, *towe < do
G touos, tái teu (len); - th, -t, - (len), -z
t(w)ei tua, *tewe (len)
tuus th (len) d (len)
touer,
tuer
di, dy,
-te, -
tebhei; tfei, tíf, de, -de; -z-,
D tibī *t(w)oi ----- -t- ----- ta, th-,
t(w)oi tefe dydi, -t
-s
dydy
deest
t(w)ei, (cf. 3ª
L tē ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
t(w)oi sueso,
seso)
I t(w)ojo ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Ab ted tē deest ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

494
 Appendix III: In-Depth Analysis

GMC GOT ON OE OHG LIT PRUS SLAV

*eka (cf.
ik ek ic ih aš as azъ
vén. .e.go)
*mike (cf.
vén. mik mik mec, mē mih mane mien <*men mę
mego)
*mīnō meina mīn mīn mīn manęs mais(e) mene
mennei, māim
*miza mis mēr mē mir mâni(e), man mьnję; mi
<instr.
….. ….. ….. ….. ….. manyje ----- mьnję
….. ….. ….. ….. ….. manimi ----- mъnojǫ
….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ----- ----- -----
toū, tou, thou,
*þū þū þū þū dū, du tu ty
tu
tien, tin
*þeke þuk þik þe(c) dih tave tę
<*ten
*þīn þeina þīn þīn dīn tavęs twais(e) tebe
*þeza þus þēr þē dir tâvi(e), tau tebbei, tebbe tebję; ti
….. ….. ….. ….. ….. tavyje ----- tebję
….. ….. ….. ….. ….. tavimi ----- tobojǫ
….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ----- ----- -----

GK ARM SKR AV TOCH ALB HITT

u:k (arc.),
εγω, εγων es ahám azə̄m näs,̣ ñuk unë
ammuk
ammuk; -
εµε; µε is m m, mā (mā) *mekwe mua, mue
mu
εµου; µου <µεσο im máma, me mana ñi <*mäñi im <I + em ammēl
máhya, mabya,
imdz <*imij ammuk; -
εµοι; µοι máhyam, mabyah
<*emeg (e)i
h mu
me (mai)
−−−−− is máyi ----- =dat.
−−−−− inew máyā deest …..
−−−−− inén, indzén mát mat ammēdaz
tvə̄m, tūm A tu, В
συ du tvám ti <*tū zik
(tard.) (tū) t(u)we
tuk; -tta, -
σε; σε <*twe k'ez <*twe- tv m, tvā θąm (θvā)
ttu
adi. y-t, ac.
σου <∗tweso k'o táva, te tava (tai) tuēl
tën-t
k'ez túbhya, tabya, tuk; -tta, -
σοι; σοι <*twoi
<*twegh(e)i túbhyam, te tabyah (tai) ttu
−−−−− k'ez tváyi, tvé ----- =dat.
θvā
−−−−− k'ew tváyā …..
(tardiiuum)
−−−−− k'én, k'ezén tvát θat tuēdaz

495
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

PLURAL

Welsh
TON. AT. LAT O-U PTOCEL OIr I OIr D Welsh I CORN BRET
D
snisni,
*(s)nīs
wejes, sníni,
N nōs <*(s)nēs; ----- ni, nini ----- ny ni, ny
n̥smé sisni,
*snīsnīs
sinni, sní
ny, ny ni, -n-, -
nōns
-n-, -m, ny; -n-, - on-, -
A <*nosms, nōs *snōs ----- -nn- -----
n(n) gan-, - hon-;-
n̥smé; nos
gen- mp
*aterom an, agan,
athar, ár hon, hor,
n̥seróm; nostrum, <*n̥sero einym, an, yn; agen; -n,
G <*n̥s-rō- ar n- hol; -n, -
nos -ī desunt m /so einom -n -gan, -
m on
n̥sme gen
ny, ny ni, -n-, -
n̥sméi, -n-, -m, ny, -n-, - on-, -
D nōbis *snōs ----- -nn- -----
nosbhos n(n) gan-, - hon-;-
<*nosbhi
gen- mp
s (cf.
n̥smí, pubēs
L ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
nosi <*pusbh-
I nosbhis ) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Ab n̥sméd ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
*swīs chwi,
juwes, sib, sissi, hui, huy,
N uōs FAL <swēs; ----- chwich ----- why, wy
jusmé síi c'houi
uēs swīswīs wi
wōns PAELI -huy, -
why,-s-,
<*wosms, GN.- -ch-, - hu, -uy. -
A uōs *swōs ----- -b- ----- -gas-; --
jusmé; uus ch u; -oz-, -
ges-; ugh
wos ch
sethar, (h)oz,
far n-, einwch, awch, as, agas,
wesróm; uostrum, uestra *(s)wesro sethar- (h)ouz,
G for n-, einywc ych; - ages; -
wos -ī 'uestra' m si, sar, ho; -oz, -
bar n- h ch gas, ges
fathar ouz
-huy, -
jusméi, why,-s-,
-ch-, - hu, -uy. -
D wosbhos; *swōs ----- -b- ----- -gas-; --
ch u; -oz-, -
wos ges-; ugh
uōbis ch
jusmí, <*wosbhi desunt
L ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
wosi s
I wosbhis ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Ab jusméd ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

496
 Appendix III: In-Depth Analysis

GMC GOT ON OE OHG LIT PRUS SLAV

my
*weys weis vēr wē wir mes <*wes mes <*wes
<*wes
mans<*nans
*uns uns(is) oss ūs(ic) unsih mus ny
<nṓns; *nō
nasъ
nōuson, nōusan
*unserō unsera vār ūser, ūre unsēr mūsų <*nōs-
*-sōn.-
sōm
noūmans
*uns uns(is) oss ūs uns mums namъ; ny
*nōmṓns
….. ….. ….. ….. ….. mumyse nasъ
….. ….. ….. ….. ….. mumis nami
….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ----- -----
*yūs jus ēr gē, gīe ir jūs ioūs <jūs vy
wans<*vans
*(w)izwiz izwis yðr ēow iu jus vy
<vṓns; *vō
ioūson, ioūsān
*izwerō izwara yð(u)ar ēower iuwēr jūsų vasъ
<*-sōn-
ioūmans <
*(w)izwiz izwis yðr ēow(ic) iuwih jums vamъ ; ny
*jōmṓns
….. ….. ….. ….. ….. jumyse vasъ
….. ….. ….. ….. ….. jumis vami
….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ----- -----

GK ARM SKR AV TOCH ALB HITT

ηµεισ <nsme + es mek' wēs (arc.);
vayám vayam wes na <*nŏs
, eol. αµµε <nsme <*sme- anzās
asm n,
ηµασ mez ahma -m, -äm ne <*nōs anzās; -nnas
nas
asm kam,
ηµων mer (nah) ne <*nōs anzēl
nas
asmábhyam ahmabya
ηµιν mez ne <*nōs anzās; -nnas
, asmé, nas (nah)
asm su,
----- mez ----- =dat.
asmé
----- mewk' asm bhis deest …..
----- ménj asmát ahmat anzēdaz
duk' <*juH-
υµεισ yūyám yūžam ju < *u sumēs
s/ tuH-s
yuṣm n, sumās; -
υµασ dzez (vāh) -m, -äm
vas smas
dzer yuṣm sumenzan
ηµων (vah)
<*swesrom kam, vas (arc.), sumēl
dzez šmabhya,
yuṣmábhya sumēs; -
ηµιν <*sgheghi yušmabya
m, vas smas
<*sweghi (vah)
yusm su,
----- dzez ----- =dat.
yuṣmé
----- dzewk' yuṣm bhis šmā …..
šmat,
----- dzénj yuṣmát sumēdaz
yušmat

497
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
III.3. WORD FORMATION: COMMON PIE LENGTHENINGS
AND SUFFIXES
IE Latin Old Irish West East Gmc. Greek Indian Slavic
Gmc.
------ uox φλεψ vāc 'uox'
rex rí πουσ rāt
lex bó 'bos' ko βουσ gáu/go
lux ονυξ ruk
grex ap 'aqua'
mūs mūs µυσ mū mysi (ac.)
pes
nux
trabs
nix
-os kamb snaiws λογοσ śoka 'splendor' snegъ 'nix'
'pecten' 'nix' 'uerbum'
γοµφοσ jambha 'dens' zobъ 'dens'
'dens'
φοροσ tokъ
στοιχοσ
τροχοσ 'cur
sus'
οχοσ
'currus'
-ós procus τοµοσ 'seca vará 'sequitor'
ns'
coquus τροχοσ 'rot śoká 'splendens'
a'
λοιποσ ghaná
'reliquiae' 'occisor'
-us genu(īnus) gin (geno) kinnus γενυσ hanu
dens
pecus/pecu haidus ketú
faihu paśú
dāru
domus δοµοσ dáma domъ
-jom/ja ingenium cride 'cor' ικριον vairya 'uirilitās' stoletie
'saeculum'
officium sétig <-yā σοφια 'sapi saujanya dolia 'pars'
'mulier' entia' 'probitās'
hospitium
gremium
prolubium
repudium
uaticinium
principium
dolium
feria
reliquiae
- dōnum υπνοσ sthānam 'locus'
nos/no 'somnus'
m

498
 Appendix III: In-Depth Analysis
somnus χοανοσ svapnah
'olla' 'sopnus'
regnum οργανον snānam 'nātus'
'instrument
um'
λυχνοσ <ks dānam 'dōnum'
n 'candēla'
varna 'color'
(uarius)
arambhanam
'initium'
rodanam
śasanam
anusthānam
adhyayanam
āsānam
adhyānam
abhidhānam
indhanam
kārnam
tādanam
grathanam
patanam
ádanam
darśanam
svā́ danam
-nā lūna ποινη tsená
'pūnitiō' 'pretium'
habēna ηδονη luna 'id.'
'uoluptās'
pruina
ruina
-njom somnium blíad(a)in –νιον svápn(i)ya sunie
<yā 'anūs'
scrutinium prāvīnya žnanie
'scientia'
triennium kārtsnya upražnenie
'totālitās' 'exercitium'
kārpanya cozarenie
'miseria'
znamenie
'importanti
a'
značenie
'significātiō'
obъiavlenie
'nuntiātiō'
prepodavan
ie
čtenie 'lectiō'
cobranie
'collectiō'
-tjom/tjā exercitium antastya-
'intestīna'
seruitium

499
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
initium
praeputium
tristitia
indutiae
-twom pañcatvam lekarstvo
'quique 'medicāment
elementa' um'
gurutvam gosteprimstv
'grāuitās' o
'hospitālitās'
stroitelstvo
'constructiō'
proizvodstvo
'productiō'
znakomstvo
'scientia'
-men
nōmen ainm ονοµα 'nōm nāman 'nōmen' vrěmę,
en' 'tempus'
agmen léimm φερµα 'onu bhárma/bhárīm brěmę,
‘saltus’ s' an 'onus'
flūmen<gsm céimm τερµα preman čisme
‘passus’ 'terminus' 'affectiō ' (s+mn̥)
'numerus'
flāmen<gsm béimm α(F)ετµα ashman 'saxum'
‘ictus’ 'halitus'
στιγµα bharman 'onus'
'plāga'
τιµηµα tarman
'honor'
lūmen<ksm γραµµα, γρ bráhman
ασµα
αγεµεν 'ferr
e'
- pulmō αυτµην (αε brahmā́ n
mon/mēn τµα)
πυθµην dharmā́
υµην
λιµην 'port
us'
λειµων
ιδµων
'scius'
πνευµων
'pulmō'
-mn̥tom augmentum hliumant śrómatam
'reputātiō' 'reputātiō'
excrēmentum
-on tēmōn τεκτων taksan
'tignārius'
nefrōnēs αρσην 'mas uksán
'
pecten (F)αρην yúvan
'ariēs'
gluten

500
 Appendix III: In-Depth Analysis
-mos rēmus<tsm καλαµοσ kāma
'calamus'
fūmus ανεµοσ drumá
'uentus'
ολµοσ<λσµ dhūmá
'mortārium'
trmá
-mā flamma<gsm δρυµα
glūma αιχµη <ks
m 'cuspis'
plūma
- prēlum οµφαλοσ
los/lom/l
ā
candēla
fidēlia
-kos/kā pertica prāśnika
parca sainika
bhiksuka
balaka
karabhaka
maryaka
abhisoka
-ro stuprum πτερον 'āla'
ολεθροσ
'dēlētiō'
-er leuir δαηρ 'leuir'
φρεαρ 'pute
us'
πι(F)αρ 'ad
eps'
ουθαρ 'ūter'
ηµαρ 'diēs'
αλειφαρ
'adeps'
super υπερ 'super'

-tā iuuenta ολ(F)οτησ 't kṛtajnatā

otālitās'
βιοτη 'uīta' devatā
ṛjutā
gurutā
sarvatā
-tāt(i) ικανοτησ aristátāti
ισοτησ ayaksmátāti
ιδιοτησ gṛbhītátāti
µεσοτησ jyesthátāti
deitās/dīvīnitās devátāti
acritās vasútāti
firmitās ástatāti
commūnitās gamaindai dáksatāti
ths
gemeind gamainths śámtāti
e
501
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
managdut
hais
-ti mens φυσισ mati
'nātūra'
pars ζευξισ krti
'uinculum'
mors τερψισ 'obl bhakti
ectamentu
m'
ars βασισ 'gras bati
us'
υστερησισ drsti
'dilātiō'
κινησισ 'm vipatti
ouimentum
'
bhrti
pankti
-tu portus furt αστυ 'urbs' av. p∂r∂tu-š
'pons'
saltus gántus
-tūt iuuentūs oítiu mikiduÞs
'iuuentūs' 'magnitūdō
'
senectūs sentu
'senectūs'
salūs bethu 'uita'
uirtūs oíntu 'ūnītās'
slántu 'salūs'
cáttu
'sanctitās'
nemarbtu
'immortālitās'
-to νοστοσ
φορτοσ
καµατοσ
βιοτοσ (βιο
τη)
κοιτοσ
ερπετον
-tor/tēr genitor γενετωρ/γεν janitr
ετηρ
πευστηρ gntr
krtr
drstr
dhaatr
raksitr
bóddha
-in bhāvin graždanin
'ciuis, homō
urbānus'
puspadhārin krestianin
'homō
rusticus'
medhavin angličanin
'anglensis'
502
 Appendix III: In-Depth Analysis
kuśalin parižanin
'parisiensis'
ksayin
-dhrom crībrum
-trom arātrum αροτρον 'ar
ātrum'
rostrum φερτρον 'far
etra'
lūstrum λεκτρον 'lec
tus'
tarātrum νιπτρον
'lauabum'
σωστρον
-dhlom stābulum χυτλον 'olla
'
pābulum γενεθλον
-tlom poculum mántra
situlum shrotra
-os- (n) onus slíab 'mons' κλεοσ anas 'onus'
'gloria'
opus νεφοσ apas 'opus'
'nubēs'
ερεβοσ shravas
'inferus'
candramas
tejas
chandas
tapas
nabhas
payas
manas
yaśas
raksas
rajas
vaksas
vayas
vasas
vedhas
śiras
saras
-os- (m) aurōr(a) aurōr-a εωσ 'aurōra' usáa 'aurōra'
calor αιδωσ
'pudicitia'
tepor
honor
-estu inruccus cvežestь
<ed+tu 'opulentia' 'frescor'
/esti
<ed+ti
comláinso
'plēnitūdō'
áthius
'acerbitās'
diuitius
'simplicitās'
503
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN
cosmuilius
'similitūdō'
cuibdius
'harmonia'
erdarcus
'pulchritūdō'
faitigus
'cautiō'
inderbus
'incertitūdō'
cutrummus
'equalitās'
mórálus
'moralitas'
comarbus
'hereditās'
coibnius
'familiāritās'
astu<ad flaithemnas thiudinass glupostь
+tu / 'dominium' us 'stultitia'
asti<ad 'regnum'
+ti
airechas gudjin- polnostь
'nōbilitās' assus 'plēnitūdō'
'sacerdotiu
m'
óclachas podrobnostь
'indicātiō'
muntaras grustь
'familiāritās' 'tristitia'
remthechtas gordostь
'antepositiō'
anamchairtes molodostь
'directiō 'iuuentūs'
spirituālis'
lánamnas starostь
'matrimoniu 'senectūs'
m'
testas iarostь
'testimonium 'exasperātiō'
'
émechas
'opportunitās'
coitchennas
'generālitās'

504
 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND FURTHER READING
This work is mainly a compilation of scholar knowledge, the output of two centuries
of thorough research in comparative linguistics. It is highly recommended to consult
other books on IE linguistics to learn Proto-Indo-European. Google books at
<http://books.google.com/> is a great tool to read some parts of any of these works
and decide whether it is interesting to buy them or not.
For this specific book we have used (among other, less important references) the
following works (recommended further reading in boldface):
o Adrados, Francisco R., Bernabé, Alberto, Mendoza, Julia. Manual de lingüística
indoeuropea I, Ediciones Clásicas, 1995.
o Adrados, Francisco R., Bernabé, Alberto, Mendoza, Julia. Manual de lingüística
indoeuropea II, Ediciones Clásicas, 1996.
o Adrados, Francisco R., Bernabé, Alberto, Mendoza, Julia. Manual de lingüística
indoeuropea III, Ediciones Clásicas, 1998.
o Baldi, Philips. The Foundations of Latin, Mouton de Gruyter, 2002.
o Bauer, Brigitte. Archaic Syntax in Indo-European: The Spread of Transitivity in Latin
and French, Mouton de Gruyter, 2000.
o Anthony, David W. The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from
the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World. Princeton University Press, 2007.
o Beekes, Robert S. P. Comparative Indo-European Linguistics: An
Introduction, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1995.
o Benveniste, Émile. Le vocabulaire des institutions indo-européennes. Paris: Les Editions
de Minuit, 1969.
o Bryce, Trevor. The Kingdom of the Hittites. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.
o Buck, Carl Darling. Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin, Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1933.
o Cheung, Johnny: Etymological dictionary of the Iranian verb. Brill, 2007.
o Clackson, James. Indo-European Linguistics: An Introduction. Cambridge
University Press, 2007.
o Cooper, Robert L. Language planning and social change. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1989.
o Crépin, André. Problèmes de grammaire historique. Presses Universitaires de France,
1978.
o Derksen, Rick: Etymological dictionary of the Slavic inherited lexicon. Brill,
2008.
o Fortson, Benjamin W. Indo-European language and culture: an
introduction. Wiley-Blackwell, 2004.
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

o Ganesh Gadre, Vasant. Estructuras gramaticales de hindi y español. Madrid: CSIC, 1996.
o Güterbock, Hans G., Hoffner, Harry A. The Hittite Dictionary, fascicle 1, volume 3.
Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1980.
o Güterbock, Hans G., Hoffner, Harry A. The Hittite Dictionary, fascicle 2, volume 3.
Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1983.
o Güterbock, Hans G., Hoffner, Harry A. The Hittite Dictionary, fascicle 3, volume 3.
Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1986.
o Gvozdanovic, Jadranka. Indo-European Numerals. Mouton de Gruyter, 1991.
o Jasanoff, Jay H. Hittite and the Indo-European verb. Oxford University Press, 2005.
o Kerns, J. Alexander. A sketch of the Indo-European finite verb. Brill, 1972.
o Kloekhorst, Alwin. Etymological dictionary of the Hittite inherited lexicon. Brill, 2008.
o Krahe, Hans. Lingüística indoeuropea. Madrid: CSIC, 1953.
o Kortlandt, Frederik Herman Henri: Italo-Celtic origins and prehistoric development of
the Irish language. Rodopi, 2007.
o Lazzeroni, Romano. La cultura indoeuropea. Bari: Gius, Laterza & Figli, 1998.
o Lehmann, W. P. Theoretical Bases of Indo-european Linguistics. London: Routledge.
o Lehmann, W.P. Proto-Indo-European Phonology. Austin: University of Texas Press and
Linguistic Society of America, 1952
o Lehmann, W.P. A Reader in Nineteenth-Century Historical Indo-European Linguistics.
Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1967
o Lehmann, W. P. Proto-Indo-European Syntax. Austin: University of Texas
Press, 1974
o Lehmann, W., Zgusta, L. Schleicher’s tale after a century. In Festschrift for Oswald
Szemerényi on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday. Amsterdam: B. Brogyanyi, 1979. p.
455–66
o Lindemann, F.O. Introduction to the Laryngeal Theory, Oslo: Norwegian University
Press, 1987.
o Lubotsky, Alexander, Sound law and analogy: papers in honor of Robert S.P. Beekes on
the occasion of his 60th birthday, Rodopi, 1997.
o Mallory, J.P., Adams, D.Q. The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European
and the Proto-Indo-European World. Oxford University Press, USA, 2006
(Reprinted 2007).
o Mallory, J.P., Adams, D.Q. Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture. Routledge, 1997.
o Martínez, Javier, de Vaan, Michiel. Introducción al avéstico. Madrid: Ediciones Clásicas,
2001.
o Matasović, Ranko: Etymological dictionary of proto-Celtic. Brill, 2009.
o Mayrhofer, Manfred. Indogermanische Grammatik, i/2: Lautlehre, Heidelberg: Winter,
1986.
o Masson, Emilia. Les douze dieux de l’immortalité. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1989.

506
 Bibliography and Further Reading

o Meid, W. Archäeologie und Sprachwissenschaft. Innsbruck: Institut für

Sprachwissenschaft der Universität.
o Meier-Brügger, Michael, Fritz, Matthias, Mayrhofer, Manfred. Indo-
European Linguistics. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2003.
o Miller, Gary. Latin suffixal derivatives in English and their Indo-European ancestry.
USA: Oxford University Press, 2006.
o Monier-Williams, Sir Monier, A Sanskrit-English Dictionary, Etymologically and
Philologically arranged, Oxford University Press, 1899.
o Penney, J.H.W., Indo-European Perspectives, Studies In Honour of Anna Morpurgo
Davies, Oxford University Press, 2004.
o Ramat, Anna Giacalone, Ramat, Paolo. Le lingue indoeuropee. Bologna: Il Mulino, 1993.
o Renfrew, Colin. Archaeology and language: The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins.
London: Jonathan Cape, 1987.
o Ringe, Donald, et al. A History of English: Volume I: From Proto-Indo-European to
Proto-Germanic. USA: Oxford University Press, 2006.
o Roberts, Edward A., Pastor, Bárbara. Diccionario etimológico indoeuropeo de la lengua
española. Madrid: Alianza, 1996.
o Renfrew, Colin. Arqueología y Lenguaje: La cuestión de los orígenes indoeuropeos.
Barcelona: Crítica, 1990
o Rix, Helmut, (ed.) Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben: Die Wurzeln und
ihre Primärstammbildungen, Second Edition. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig
Reichert Verlag 2001.
o Sánchez Salor, E. Semántica y sintaxis. La oración compuesta latina. Cáceres:
Universidad de Extremadura, 1993.
o Shields, K. A history of Indo-European Verb Morphology. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1992.
o Sihler, Andrew L. New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin, Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1995.
o Szemerényi, Oswald. Einführung in die Vergleichende Sprachenwissenschaft.
Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1989.
o Szemerényi, Oswald. Introduction to Indo-European Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1996.
o Tovar, Antonio. Antiguo Eslavo Eclesiástico. Madrid: Universidad Complutense, 1987.
o Tucker, T.G., Etymological Dictionary of Latin, Ares Publishers, 1976
o de Vaan, Michiel, de Vaan,Michiel Arnoud Cor: Etymological dictionary of Latin and the
other Italic languages. Brill, 2008.
o Villar, F. Los indoeuropeos y los orígenes de Europa. Madrid: Gredos, 1991.
o Wackernagel, Jacob, Langslow, David: Lectures on syntax: with special reference to
Greek, Latin, and Germanic. Oxford University Press, 2009.
o Watkins, Calvert, The American Heritage Dictionary of Indo-European Roots, 2nd ed.,
Houghton Mifflin Co., 2000.
507
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

o Watkins, Calvert, How to Kill a Dragon: Aspects of Indo-European Poetics. Oxford

University Press, USA, 2001.
o West, M.L. Indo-European Poetry and Myth. Oxford University Press, 2009.
o Whitney, William Dwight. Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin. Delhi: Motilal
Banarsidass (reprint), 1924.

ONLINE RESOURCES
o Indo-European resources and dictionary-translator at <http://indo-european.info/>,
managed by the Indo-European Language Association.
o Indo-European Language Association: <http://dnghu.org/> and language resources at
<http://indo-european.eu/>.
o The Linguistics Research Center (LRC), University of Texas, at
<http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/> offers online books, lessons, texts, etc. on
Proto-Indo-European and early Indo-European dialects.
o The Indo-European Etymological Dictionary (IEED) at <http://www.indo-
european.nl>, managed by the Department of Comparative Indo-European Linguistics
at Leiden University, with some etymological dictionaries of Indo-European dialects.
o The Tower of Babel project at <http://starling.rinet.ru>, a lexicon project oriented to
Indo-European, Eurasiatic, Nostratic and other language families, with free software
and PDFs for download.
o Frederik Kortlandt’s personal website offers some of his publications online at
<http://www.kortlandt.nl/publications/>.
o The Thesaurus Indogermanischer Text- und Sprachmaterialien (TITUS), at
<http://titus.uni-frankfurt.de/>.
o The Digital Library Perseus Hopper at <http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/>.

WIKIPEDIA
Wikipedia, the Free Online Encyclopaedia, and Wiktionary, are excellent sources of
common knowledge. We want to thank to all contributors and to their founders. Even though
the appropriate policy is to reference each work and their authors, it is impossible to trace
back each excerpt to its origin. These are the articles whose excerpts are identifiable in this
work – especially referring to IE dialects –, in order of appearance:
Indo-European languages <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_languages>
Kurgan hypothesis <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurgan_hypothesis>
Haplogroup R1a <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1a_(Y-DNA) >
Indo-Uralic: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Uralic_languages>
Old European Hydronymy: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_European_hydronymy>
Germanic languages: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_languages>
Romance languages: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romance_languages>
Italic languages: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italic_languages>
Celtic languages: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_languages>

508
 Bibliography and Further Reading

Proto-Celtic: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Celtic_language>
Italo-Celtic: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italo-Celtic>
Slavic languages: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavic_languages>
Baltic languages: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_languages>
Balto-Slavic languages <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balto-Slavic_languages>
Messapian language: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messapian_language>
Venetic language: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venetic_language>
Liburnian language: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liburnian_language>
Lusitanian language: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lusitanian_language>
Greek language: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language>
Proto-Greek language: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Greek_language>
Armenian language: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_language>
Indo-Iranians: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Iranians>
Proto-Indo-Iranian: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-Iranian_language>
Phrygian language: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrygian_language>
Ancient Macedonian: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Macedonian_language>
Anatolian languages: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatolian_languages>
Hittite language: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hittite_language>
Luwian language: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luwian_language>
PIE phonology: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_phonology>
PIE verb: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_verb>

IMAGES AND MAPS

This is a list of Wikipedia or Wikimedia users, whose images have been used. Links are to
their personal sites or to the image in particular, depending on their expressed preferences –
or to ours, if not available. Reference is usually only to the latest contributor (or derivative
image), unless the core work was clearly done before him/her. In order of appearance of their
images:
Malene Thyssen: <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Malene>
Mirzali Zazaoğlu <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Writing_systems_worldwide.png>
Brianski: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IE_countries.svg>
Dbachmann: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dbachmann>
Crates: <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Crates>
Cadenas2008: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:R1bmap.JPG>
Briangotts: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Briangotts>
Hayden120: <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Hayden120>
ZyMOS: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ZyMOS>
Ewan ar Born: <http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Ewan_ar_Born>
Fabrice Philibert-Caillat:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dédicace_de_Segomaros_(inscription_gallo-
grecque).png>
Therexbanner: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Slavic_World.png>
Slovenski Volk: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Slovenski_Volk>
MapMaster: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MapMaster>

509
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

Alcides Pinto: <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Iberia_Late_Bronze.svg>

Fut.Perf. at Sunrise: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise>
Marsyas: <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Marsyas>
Ivanchay/Infocan:<http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A3%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81%
D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA:Ivanchay>
Ivaşca Flavius: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Scooter20>
Megistias: <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Megistias>
Javier Fernandez-Vina: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Javierfv1212>
Hendrik Tammen: <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Enricopedia>

510
 BIOGRAPHY (2011)
Carlos Quiles (Badajoz, 1981), awarded best Cumulative Grade Point
Average (CGPA) in the four-year Baccalaureate (1995-1999), second
in the Extraordinary Baccalaureate Awards of Extremadura (1999),
studied the Bachelor of Laws (LLB), Bachelor of Economics (BEc), and
Bachelor of Business Administration (BBA) degrees at the Carlos III
University of Madrid (1999-2005). He studied an intensive English
language proficiency level course (2000) in Cambridge, and was
awarded a scholarship for the best CGPA of the Faculty of Social and
Juridical Sciences (2001) to study in the Middlebury College German
School intensive immersion program (Advanced Grammar, Modern
Literature, Culture and Society). He spent an academic year (2001-2002) at the Humboldt
University of Berlin, studying BEc and BBA, as well as DSH-Oberstufenkurs, and courses in
French (French Law, History and Culture studies).
He worked as trainee for a Law and Financial Services firm (2005). He published some
conventional proposals and dictionaries on Astur-Leonese and Galician-Portuguese dialects,
designed dozens of websites, worked as foreign language teacher, and as database and web
administrator (2004-2006). He finished the LLB and BBA degrees in Catalan at the Open
University of Catalonia, while studying the Licentiate degree in Medicine and Surgery at the
University of Extremadura (2006-2010), obtaining it within half the time planned for the
European 6-year model. He is member of Spanish Bar, works as resident in Orthopaedic
Surgery in Badajoz, and leads the centre of specialized language learning at Biblos Idiomas
(<www.biblosidiomas.com>). He speaks English, French, German, and Russian, understands
Arabic.
Fernando López-Menchero (Madrid, 1975), studied Civil
Engineering (1993-1999) in the Escuela Técnica Superior de
Ingenieros de Caminos, Canales y Puertos de Madrid
(ETSICCP), in the Ecole Nationale des Ponts et Chaussées
(ENPC), and in the Technical University of Munich, obtaining
the double degree from ETSICCP (cum laude) and ENPC. He
pursued studies in Latin, Greek, Indo-European Languages,
culture from the Classics and Archaeology (2000-2005),
obtaining the degree in Classical Studies from the Complutense
University of Madrid (UCM). He obtained the MSc. in Public
Administration (2008-2009) from the Instituto Universitario
de Investigación Ortega y Gasset (attached to the UCM).
Most of his professional career has been involved in the road sector in the Spanish Ministry
of Fomento, where he works as a head of service. He has also been a member of the
concession team in the international company Acciona (1999-2000) and a collaborator at the
Professional Association of Civil Engineers (2000-2001). He has worked in Germany (1997-
1998), France (2005-2006), Luxemburg (2006), Belgium (2008) and Poland (2011) in the
 A GRAMMAR OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN

framework of different international programmes. He is presently participating in the VII

Bellevue Programme (2010-2011) of the Robert Bosch Foundation in Warsaw. He also loves
programming, especially in Fortran and Visualbasic.
He speaks French with bilingual proficiency, speaks German, English, and Italian, and is
now making enormous progress in Polish. He has been a successful candidate at the
EPSO/AD/142/08/OPT1 competition as a linguistic administrator with main language
Spanish, and thus holds a laureate for consideration by any European Institution via EPSO.

512