Proto-Indo-European verbs had a complex system, with verbs categorized according to their aspect: stative, imperfective, or perfective. The system used multiple grammatical moods and voices, with verbs being conjugated according to person and tense; the system of adding affixes to the base form of a verb allowed modifications that could form nouns, verbs or adjectives. The verbal system is represented in Ancient Greek and Vedic Sanskrit, which correspond, in nearly all aspects of their verbal systems, are two of the most well-understood of the early daughter languages of Proto-Indo-European. Besides the addition of affixes, another way that vowels in the word could be modified was the Indo-European ablaut, still visible in languages such as the Germanic languages. For example, the vowel in the English verb to sing varies according to the conjugation of the verb: sing and sung; the system described here is known as the "Cowgill–Rix" system and speaking, applies only to what Don Ringe terms "Western Indo-European", i.e. IE excluding Tocharian and Anatolian.
The system describes Tocharian well, but encounters significant difficulties when applied to Hittite and the other Anatolian languages. In particular, despite the fact that the Anatolian languages are the earliest-attested IE languages, much of the complexity of the Cowgill–Rix system is absent from them. In addition, contrary to the situation with other languages with simple verbal systems, such as Germanic, there is little or no evidence of the "missing" forms having existed. Furthermore, many of the forms that do exist have a different meaning from elsewhere. For example, the PIE perfect/stative conjugation shows up as a present-tense conjugation known as the ḫi-present, with no clear meaning. On the other hand, among others, has a class of present-tense verbs derived from PIE perfect/stative verbs, both Germanic and Balto-Slavic have a class of secondary n- verbs with a clear meaning, derived from nu- and/or neH- verbs, so it is possible that many of the Anatolian differences are innovations.
It is accepted that the Anatolian languages diverged from other IE languages at a point somewhat before the Cowgill–Rix system was formed. In general, the traditional Cowgill–Rix system reconstructs the following categories for Proto-Indo-European: Person: 1st, 2nd, 3rd Number: singular, plural Voice: active, middle Mood: indicative, optative, imperative also injunctive Aspect: imperfective, stative Tense: present, past Some of these categories tended to drop out in time, while some languages innovated new categories; the original interpretation of the tense and aspect categories has been a thorny issue. PIE verb morphology resembled, in many respects. A verb was formed by adding a suffix onto a root to form a stem; the word was inflected by adding an ending to the stem. R o o t + s u f f i x ⏟ s t e m + e n d i n g ⏟ w o r d A clear difference with nominals is that verbs derived directly from roots, with no suffix, were common; such verbs expressed the basic verbal meaning of the root. Various suffixes were available to derive new verbs, either by affixing to the root, or by affixing to an existing verbal or nominal stem.
Verbs, like nominals, made a basic distinction between athematic conjugations. Thematic verbs were characterised by a vowel appearing at the end of the stem, before the ending; some of the endings differed depending on whether this vowel was present or absent, but by and large the endings were the same for both types. The thematic vowel was either e or o, according to a predictable distribution: e appeared before coronal consonants and word-finally, o elsewhere. Athematic verbs appear to be older, show ablaut within the paradigm. In the descendant languages, athematic verbs were extended with a thematic vowel because of the complications resulting from the consonant clusters formed when the consonant-initial endings were added directly onto the consonant-final stems; the athematic verbs became a non-productive relic class in the Indo-European languages. In groups such as Germanic and Italic, the athematic verbs had gone extinct by the time of written records, while Sanskrit and Ancient Greek preserve
Schleicher's fable is a text composed in a reconstructed version of the Proto-Indo-European language, published by August Schleicher in 1868. Schleicher was the first scholar to compose a text in PIE; the fable is entitled Avis akvāsas ka. At dates, various scholars have published revised versions of Schleicher's fable, as the idea of what PIE should look like has changed over time; the fable may serve as an illustration of the significant changes that the reconstructed language has gone through during the last 150 years of scholarly efforts. The first revision of Schleicher's fable was made by Hermann Hirt. A second revision was published by Winfred Lehmann and Ladislav Zgusta in 1979. Another version by Douglas Q. Adams appeared in the Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture. In 2007 Frederik Kortlandt published yet another version on his homepage. Avis akvāsas ka. Avis, jasmin varnā na ā ast, dadarka akvams, tam, vāgham garum vaghantam, tam, bhāram magham, manum āku bharantam. Avis akvabhjams ā vavakat: kard aghnutai mai vidanti manum akvams agantam.
Akvāsas ā vavakant: krudhi avai, kard aghnutai vividvant-svas: manus patis varnām avisāms karnauti svabhjam gharmam vastram avibhjams ka varnā na asti. Tat kukruvants avis agram ā bhugat. Schaf und rosse. Schaf, welchem wolle nicht war sah rosse, das schweren wagen fahrend, das große last, das menschen schnell tragend. Schaf sprach rossen: herz wird beengt mir, sehend menschen rosse treibend. Rosse sprachen: Höre schaf, herz wird beengt gesehen-habenden: mensch, herr macht wolle schafe warmen kleide sich und schafen ist nicht wolle. Dies gehört-habend bog schaf feld; the Sheep and the Horses a sheep that had no wool saw horses, one of them pulling a heavy wagon, one carrying a big load, one carrying a man quickly. The sheep said to the horses: "My heart pains me, seeing a man driving horses." The horses said: "Listen, 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.
Owis ek’wōses-kʷe Owis, jesmin wьlənā ne ēst, dedork’e ek’wons, woghom gʷьrum weghontm̥, bhorom megam, tom, gh’ьmonm̥ ōk’u bherontm̥. Owis ek’womos ewьwekʷet: k’ērd aghnutai moi widontei gh’ьmonm̥ ek’wons ag’ontm̥. Ek’wōses ewьwekʷont: kl’udhi, owei!, k’ērd aghnutai vidontmos: gh’ьmo, potis, wьlənām owjôm kʷr̥neuti sebhoi ghʷermom westrom. Tod k’ek’ruwos owis ag’rom ebhuget. Owis eḱwōskʷe Gʷərēi owis, kʷesjo wl̥hnā ne ēst, eḱwōns espeḱet, oinom ghe gʷr̥um woǵhom weǵhontm̥, oinomkʷe meǵam bhorom, oinomkʷe ǵhm̥enm̥ ōḱu bherontm̥. Owis nu eḱwobhos ewewkʷet: "Ḱēr aghnutoi moi eḱwōns aǵontm̥ nerm̥ widn̥tei". Eḱwōs tu ewewkʷont: "Ḱludhi, owei, ḱēr ghe aghnutoi n̥smei widn̥tbhos: nēr, owiōm r̥ wl̥hnām sebhi gʷhermom westrom kʷrn̥euti. Neǵhi owiōm wl̥hnā esti". Tod ḱeḱluwōs owis aǵrom ebhuget. Owis ek’woi kʷe Owis, jesmin wl̥nā ne ēst, dedork’e ek’wons woghom gʷr̥um weghontn̥s - bhorom meg'əm, monum ōk’u bherontn̥s. Owis ek’wobhos eweukʷet: K’erd aghnutai moi widn̥tei g’hm̥onm̥ ek’wons ag’ontm̥. Ek’woi eweukʷont: K’ludhi, owi, k’erd aghnutai dedr̥k'usbhos: monus potis wl̥nām owiōm temneti: sebhei ghʷermom westrom - owibhos kʷe wl̥nā ne esti.
Tod k’ek’luwōs owis ag’rom ebhuget. H₂óu̯is h₁ék̂u̯ōs-kʷe h₂óu̯is, kʷési̯o u̯lh₂néh₄ ne est, h₁ék̂u̯ons spék̂et, h₁oinom ghe gʷr̥hₓúm u̯óĝhom u̯éĝhontm̥ h₁oinom-kʷe méĝhₐm bhórom, h₁oinom-kʷe ĝhménm̥ hₓṓk̂u bhérontm̥. H₂óu̯is tu h₁ek̂u̯oibhos u̯eukʷét:'k̂ḗr hₐeghnutór moi h₁ék̂u̯ons hₐéĝontm̥ hₐnérm̥ u̯idn̥téi. H ₁ ék̂u̯ōs tu u̯eukʷónt: ` h ₂ óu̯ei, k̂ḗr ghe hₐeghnutór n̥sméi u̯idn̥tbhós. Hₐnḗr, pótis, h₂éu̯i̯om r̥ u̯l̥h₂néhₐm sebhi kʷr̥néuti nu gʷhérmom u̯éstrom néĝhi h₂éu̯i̯om u̯l̥h₂néhₐ h₁ésti.' Tód k̂ek̂luu̯ṓs h₂óu̯is hₐéĝrom bhugét. H₂ówis h₁ék’wōskʷe h₂ówis, jésmin h₂wlh₂néh₂ ne éh₁est, dedork’e ék’wons, tóm, wóg’ʰom gʷérh₂um wég’ʰontm, tóm, bʰórom még’oh₂m, tóm, dʰg’ʰémonm h₂oHk’ú bʰérontm. H₂ówis ék’wobʰos ewewkʷe: k’ḗrd h₂gʰnutoj moj widntéj dʰg’ʰmónm ék’wons h₂ég’ontm. Ék’wōs ewewkʷ: k’ludʰí, h₂ówi! k’ḗrd h₂gʰnutoj widntbʰós: dʰg’ʰémō, pótis, h₂wlnéh₂m h₂ówjom kʷnewti sébʰoj gʷʰérmom wéstrom. Tód k’ek’luwṓs h₂ówis h₂ég’rom ebʰuge. Owis eḱwōs kʷe Owis, jāi wl̥nā ne eest, dedorḱe eḱwons, tom woǵʰom gʷr̥um weǵʰontm̥, tom bʰorom meǵm̥, tom ǵʰm̥onm̥ ōku bʰerontm̥.
Owis eḱwobʰjos eweket: “Ḱerd angʰetai moi widontei ǵʰm̥onm̥ eḱwons aǵontm̥”. Eḱwos wewekur: “Ḱludʰe, owei! Ḱerd angʰetai widontbʰjos: ǵʰm̥on, potis, wl̥nam owijōm kʷr̥neti soi gʷʰermom westrom. Tod ḱeḱlōts owis aǵrom ebʰuget. H₂ówis ék̂wōs-kʷe h₂áwej h₁josméj h₂wl̥h₁náh₂ né h₁ést, só h₁ék̂woms derk̂t. Só gʷr̥hₓúm wóĝhom wéĝhet. H₂ówis h₁ék̂wojbhos wéwket: ĝhémonm̥ spék̂joh₂ h₁ék̂woms h₁jós h₂áĝeti, k̂ḗr moj aghnutór. H₁ék̂wōs tu wéwkʷont: k̂ludhí, h₂owei! tód spék̂jomes/n, n̥sméi aghnutór k̂ḗr: ĝhémō pótis sē h₂áwjōm h₂wl̥h₁nā́h₁ gʷhérmom wéstrom wébht, h₂áwibhos tu h₂wl̥h₁náh₂ né h₁ésti. Tód k̂ek̂luwṓs h. ʕʷeuis ʔiḱ:ueskʷ:e ʕʷeuis i ʕueli nēʔst ʔeḱ:ums uēit:, t:o kʷ’rʕeum uoḱom uḱent:m, t:o mḱ’eʕm porom, t:o tḱmenm ʔoʔḱ:u prent:m. uēuk:t ʕʷeuis ʔiḱ:uos, ʕetḱo ʔme ḱ:ērt ʕnerm uit’ent:i ʔeḱ:ums ʕḱ’ent:m. ueuk
Proto-Indo-European mythology is the body of myths and stories associated with the Proto-Indo-Europeans. Although these stories are not directly attested, they have been reconstructed by scholars of comparative mythology based on the similarities in the belief systems of various Indo-European peoples. Various schools of thought exist regarding the precise nature of Proto-Indo-European mythology, which do not always agree with each other; the main mythologies used in comparative reconstruction are Vedic and Norse supported with evidence from the Baltic, Greek and Hittite traditions as well. The Proto-Indo-European pantheon includes well-attested deities such as *Dyḗus Pḥatḗr, the god of the daylit skies, his daughter *Haéusōs, the goddess of the dawn, the divine twins, the storm god *Perkwunos. Other probable deities include *Péh2usōn, a pastoral god, *Seh2ul, a female solar deity. Well-attested myths of the Proto-Indo-Europeans include a myth involving a storm god who slays a multi-headed serpent that dwells in water and a creation story involving two brothers, one of whom sacrifices the other to create the world.
The Proto-Indo-Europeans may have believed that the Otherworld was guarded by a watchdog and could only be reached by crossing a river. They may have believed in a world tree, bearing fruit of immortality, either guarded by or gnawed on by a serpent or dragon, tended by three goddesses who spun the thread of life; the mythology of the Proto-Indo-Europeans is not directly attested and it is difficult to match their language to archaeological findings related to any specific culture from the Chalcolithic. Nonetheless, scholars of comparative mythology have attempted to reconstruct aspects of Proto-Indo-European mythology based on the existence of similarities among the deities, religious practices, myths of various Indo-European peoples; this method is known as the comparative method. Different schools of thought have approached the subject of Proto-Indo-European mythology from different angles; the Meteorological School holds that Proto-Indo-European mythology was centered around deified natural phenomena such as the sky, the Sun, the Moon, the dawn.
This meteorological interpretation was popular among early scholars, such as Friedrich Max Müller, who saw all myths as fundamentally solar allegories. This school lost most of its scholarly support in early twentieth centuries; the Ritual School, which first became prominent in the late nineteenth century, holds that Proto-Indo-European myths are best understood as stories invented to explain various rituals and religious practices. The Ritual School reached the height of its popularity during the early twentieth century. Many of its most prominent early proponents, such as James George Frazer and Jane Ellen Harrison, were classical scholars. Bruce Lincoln, a contemporary member of the Ritual School, argues that the Proto-Indo-Europeans believed that every sacrifice was a reenactment of the original sacrifice performed by the founder of the human race on his twin brother; the Functionalist School holds that Proto-Indo-European society and their mythology, was centered around the trifunctional system proposed by Georges Dumézil, which holds that Proto-Indo-European society was divided into three distinct social classes: farmers and priests.
The Structuralist School, by contrast, argues that Proto-Indo-European mythology was centered around the concept of dualistic opposition. This approach tends to focus on cultural universals within the realm of mythology, rather than the genetic origins of those myths, but it offers refinements of the Dumézilian trifunctional system by highlighting the oppositional elements present within each function, such as the creative and destructive elements both found within the role of the warrior. One of the earliest attested and thus most important of all Indo-European mythologies is Vedic mythology the mythology of the Rigveda, the oldest of the Vedas. Early scholars of comparative mythology such as Friedrich Max Müller stressed the importance of Vedic mythology to such an extent that they equated it with Proto-Indo-European myth. Modern researchers have been much more cautious, recognizing that, although Vedic mythology is still central, other mythologies must be taken into account. Another of the most important source mythologies for comparative research is Roman mythology.
Contrary to the frequent erroneous statement made by some authors that "Rome has no myth", the Romans possessed a complex mythological system, parts of which have been preserved through the characteristic Roman tendency to rationalize their myths into historical accounts. Despite its late attestation, Norse mythology is still considered one of the three most important of the Indo-European mythologies for comparative research due to the vast bulk of surviving Icelandic material. Baltic mythology has received a great deal of scholarly attention, but has so far remained frustrating to researchers because the sources are so comparatively late. Nonetheless, Latvian folk songs are seen as a major source of information in the process of reconstructing Proto-Indo-European myth. Despite the popularity of Greek mythology in western culture, Greek mythology is seen as having little importance in comparative mythology due to the heavy influence of Pre-Greek and Near Eastern cultures, which overwhelms what little Indo-European material can be extracted from it.
Greek mythology received minimal scholarly attention until the mid 2000s. Although Scythians are considered conservative in regards to Proto-Indo-European cultures, retaining a similar lifestyle and culture, their mythology has rarely been examined in
Proto-Indo-European society is the hypothesized culture of the ancient speakers of Proto-Indo-European, ancestors of all modern Indo–European ethnic groups who are speakers of Indo-European languages. Theories about the culture are based on linguistics and not ethnic, social, or cultural study, as the origin of Indo–European and their urheimat is still debated. There is no direct evidence of the nature of as such. Much of our modern ideas in this field involve the unsettled Indo-European homeland debate about the precise origins of the language itself. There are three main approaches researchers have employed in their attempts to study this culture, but all are subject to resolution of the debate and all are the subject of criticism: Archeology: Interpretations that are based on archaeological evidence. Comparative linguistics: Interpretations that are based on the comparative analysis of the languages of known societies. Linguistic reconstruction: Interpretations that are based on the reconstruction and identification of words which formed part of the vocabulary of the Proto-Indo-European language.
These are reconstructed on the basis of sounds. What these terms may have referred to at the stage of Proto-Indo-European is therefore less certain; the technique of inferring culture from such reconstructions is known as linguistic palaeontology. What follows in this page are interpretations based only on the assumption of the Kurgan hypothesis of Indo-European origins, are by no means universally accepted. Whether these people regarded themselves as a linguistic or ethnic community cannot be known, nor by which name they may have referred to themselves. Linguistics has allowed the reliable reconstruction of a large number of words relating to kinship relations; these all agree in exhibiting a patriarchal and patrilineal social fabric. Patrilocality is confirmed by lexical evidence, including the word *h2u̯edh, "to lead", being the word that denotes a male wedding a female, it is the dominant pattern in historical IE societies, matrilocality would be unlikely in a patrilineal society. Inferences have been made for sacral kingship, suggesting the tribal chief at the same time assumed the role of high priest.
Georges Dumézil suggested for Proto-Indo-European society a threefold division of a clerical class, a warrior class and a class of farmers or husbandmen, on his interpretations that many known groups speaking Indo-European languages show such a division, but Dumézil's approach has been criticised. If there was a separate class of warriors, it consisted of single young men, they would have followed a separate warrior code unacceptable in the society outside their peer-group. Traces of initiation rites in several Indo-European societies suggest that this group identified itself with wolves or dogs; the people were organized in settlements each with its chief. These settlements or villages were further divided in each headed by a patriarch. Technologically, linguistic reconstruction suggests a culture of the Bronze Age: words for bronze can be reconstructed from Germanic and Indo-Iranian, while no word for iron can be dated to the proto-language. Gold and silver were known. An *n̥sis was a bladed weapon a dagger of bronze or of bone.
An * iḱmos was a similar pointed weapon. Words for axe include *h₂égʷsih₂ and *péleḱu-; the wheel was known for ox-drawn carts. The wheel was not invented by the Proto-Indo-Europeans, but the word *kʷékʷlos is a native derivation of the root *kʷel- "to turn" rather than a borrowing, suggesting that the PIE speakers' contact with the people who introduced the wheel to them was short. Horse-drawn chariots developed after the breakup of the proto-language, originating with the Proto-Indo-Iranians around 2000 BC. Judging by the vocabulary, techniques of weaving, tying knots etc. were important and well-developed and used for textile production as well as for baskets, walls etc. Proto-Indo-European society depended on animal husbandry. People valued cattle as their most important animals, measuring a man's wealth by the number of cows he owned. Sheep and goats were kept by the less wealthy. Agriculture and catching fish featured; the domestication of the horse may have originated with these peoples: scholars sometimes invoke this as a factor contributing to their rapid expansion.
They practiced a polytheistic religion centered on sacrificial rites administered by a class of priests or shamans. Animals were dedicated to the gods in the hope of winning their favour; the king as the high priest would have been the central figure in establishing favourable relations with the other world
Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben
The Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben is an etymological dictionary of the Proto-Indo-European verb. The first edition appeared in 1998, edited by Helmut Rix. A second edition followed in 2001; the book may be seen as an update to the verb entries of the Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch by Julius Pokorny. It was the first dictionary utilizing the modern three-laryngeal theory with reconstructions of Indo-European verbal roots; the authors of the LIV assume a dichotomy between telic verbs and atelic verbs in early stages of Proto-Indo-European. Before the daughter languages split off, aspect emerged as a new grammatical category. Telic verbs were interpreted as aorist forms, the missing present was formed with various suffixes and the nasal infix, all of which are supposed to come from old grammatical forms of uncertain meaning. Atelic verbs were interpreted as present forms, the missing aorist was formed with the suffix -s-, yielding the sigmatic aorist; this hypothesis is used to explain various phenomena: Some verbs in Indo-European languages form root presents and derived sigmatic aorists.
Other verbs derived present forms. For many PIE verbs, various present forms can be reconstructed without discernible differences in meaning. In addition to the present and the aorist, the following aspects are assumed: Perfect Causative-Iterative Desiderative Intensive Fientive Essive The lexical part contains for each verbal root the conjectured meaning, reconstructed stems with their reflexes in the daughter languages, extensive footnotes, the page number of the corresponding IEW entry; the book includes a regressive root index, an index of reconstructed primary stems, sorted by aspect and formation rule, an index of reflexes in the daughter languages, sorted by language. Seebold claims. Helmut Rix insists in the preface to the second edition that the assessment of the evidence should be left to the reader. Seebold criticises some of the conjectured meanings. Rix calls this criticism legitimate. Meier-Brügger tentatively calls the LIV's aspect hypothesis “adequate and capable of consensus”, without agreeing on all of the details of the analysis.
Fortson calls the LIV “ery useful and up-to-date – though in various places controversial”, but does not elaborate on the controversial places. Ringe states that the theories in Rix reflect current consensus, but implies that some of his phonological reconstructions may go beyond the consensus. Proto-Indo-European verb Grundriß der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch, with reconstructions pre-dating the laryngeal theory Indo-European Etymological Dictionary, an ongoing project based in Leiden, intended to result in the publication of a comprehensive Indo-European etymological dictionary Nomina im Indogermanischen Lexikon, structured to the LIV and treating PIE nouns and adjectives Lexikon der indogermanischen Partikeln und Pronominalstämme, structured to the LIV and treating PIE particles and pronouns. Addenda und Corrigenda zu LIV². HTML or PDF. Latest update: 3 Feb. 2015. Pokorny PIE Data Indogermanisches Wörterbuch by Gerhard Köbler
Lexikon der indogermanischen Partikeln und Pronominalstämme
The Lexikon der indogermanischen Partikeln und Pronominalstämme is an etymological dictionary of the Proto-Indo-European particles and pronouns, published in 2014. It consists of two volumes. Proto-Indo-European particles Proto-Indo-European pronouns Pokorny PIE Data Indogermanisches Wörterbuch by Gerhard Köbler