 | This article includes a list ofgeneral references, butit lacks sufficient correspondinginline citations. Please help toimprove this article byintroducing more precise citations.(March 2009) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Thephonology of theProto-Indo-European language (PIE) has beenreconstructed bylinguists, based on the similarities and differences among current and extinctIndo-European languages. Because PIE was not written, linguists must rely on the evidence of its earliestattested descendants, such asHittite,Sanskrit,Ancient Greek, andLatin, to reconstruct its phonology.
The reconstruction of abstract units of PIE phonological systems (i.e. segments, orphonemes in traditional phonology) is mostly uncontroversial, although areas of dispute remain. Theirphonetic interpretation is harder to establish; this pertains especially to thevowels, the so-calledlaryngeals, the palatal and plainvelars and the voiced and voiced aspiratedstops.
Proto-Indo-European isreconstructed as having the followingphonemes. Note that the phonemes are marked with asterisks to show that they are from a reconstructed language. See the article onIndo-European sound laws for a summary of how these phonemes reflected in the various Indo-European languages.
| Labial | Coronal | Velar | Laryngeal | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| palatal | plain | labial | |||||
| Nasals | *m | *n | |||||
| Stops | voiceless | *p | *t | *ḱ | *k | *kʷ | |
| voiced | (*b) | *d | *ǵ | *g | *gʷ | ||
| aspirated | *bʰ | *dʰ | *ǵʰ | *gʰ | *gʷʰ | ||
| Fricatives | *s | *h₁, *h₂, *h₃ | |||||
| Liquids | *r, *l | ||||||
| Semivowels | *y | *w | |||||
The table uses theWiktionary's notation for transcribing Proto-Indo-European; variant transcriptions often seen elsewhere are provided for individual segments in the following sections. Raised*ʰ stands foraspiration, and raised*ʷ forlabialization. The consonant*y is thepalatal semivowel (whoseIPA transcription is[j] and not[y]).
Proto-Indo-European was formerly reconstructed with four series of stops: voiceless unaspirated, voiceless aspirated, voiced unaspirated, and voiced aspirated (such as *t, *tʰ, *d, *dʰ). More recent reconstructions analyze voiceless aspirated stops as sequences of stop and laryngeal, and so the standard reconstruction now includes only three series of stops, with the traditionalphonetic descriptions ofvoiceless,voiced andvoiced aspirated.However, such a tripartite system is not found in any descendant language[citation needed] (Sanskrit has a fourfold distinction, including a voiceless aspirated series), and it is typologically rare across attested languages. The absence or rarity of *b (see below) is also unusual. Additionally,Proto-Indo-European roots have a constraint that forbids roots from mixing voiceless and voiced aspirate stops or from containing two voiced stops. These considerations have led some scholars to propose aglottalic theory of the PIE stop system, replacing the voiced stops withglottalized and the voiced aspirated stops withplain voiced. Direct evidence for glottalization is limited, but there is some indirect evidence, includingWinter's law in Balto-Slavic.
PIE*p, *b, *bʰ are grouped with the cover symbolP. The phonemic status of*b is disputed: it seems not to appear as an initial consonant (except in a few dubious roots such as *bel-, noted below), while reconstructed roots with internal *b are usually restricted to Western branches, casting doubt on their validity for PIE.[1]
Some have attempted to explain away the few roots with *b as a result of later phonological developments.[2] Suggested such developments include
At best, PIE*b remains a highly marginal phoneme.
The standard reconstruction identifies three coronal, ordental, stops:*t, *d, *dʰ. They are symbolically grouped with the cover symbolT.
According to the traditional reconstruction, such as the one laid out in Brugmann'sGrundriß der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen more than a century ago, three series ofvelars are reconstructed for PIE:
The actual pronunciation of these sounds in PIE is not certain. One current idea is that the "palatovelars" were in fact simple velars, i.e.*[k],*[ɡ],*[ɡʱ], while the "plain velars" were pronounced farther back, perhaps asuvular consonants, i.e.*[q],*[ɢ],*[ɢʱ].[3] If the labiovelars were justlabialized forms of the "plain velars", they would then have been pronounced*[qʷ], *[ɢʷ], *[ɢʷʱ] but the pronunciation of the labiovelars as*[kʷ], *[ɡʷ], *[ɡʷʱ] would still be possible in uvular theory, if the satem languages first shifted the "palatovelars" and then later merged the "plain velars" and "labiovelars". SeeCentum and satem languages § Different realisations for more support of this theory.
Another theory is that there may have been only two series (plain velar and labiovelar) in PIE, with the palatalized velars arising originally as a conditioned sound change in satem languages. SeeCentum and satem languages § Only two velar series.
Thesatem languages merged the labiovelars*kʷ, *gʷ, *gʷʰ with the plain velar series*k, *g, *gʰ, while the palatovelars*ḱ, *ǵ, *ǵʰ becamesibilant fricatives or affricates of various types, depending on the individual language. In some phonological conditions, depalatalization occurred, yielding what appears to be a centum reflex in a satem language. For example, in Balto-Slavic and Albanian, palatovelars were depalatalized before resonants unless the latter were followed by a front vowel. The reflexes of the labiovelars are generally indistinguishable from those of the plain velars in satem languages, but there are some words where the lost labialization has left a trace, such as by u-coloring the following vowel.
The centum group of languages, on the other hand, merged the palatovelars*ḱ, *ǵ, *ǵʰ with the plain velar series*k, *g, *gʰ, while the labiovelars*kʷ, *gʷ, *gʷʰ were in general kept distinct. Centum languages show delabialisation of labiovelars when adjacent to *w (or its allophone *u), according to a rule known as theboukólos rule.
The only certain PIE fricative phoneme*s was a strident sound, whose phonetic realization could range from [s] or[θ] to palatalized[ɕ] or[ʃ]. It had a voiced allophone*z that emerged by assimilation in words such asnisdós ('nest'), and which later became phonemicized in some daughter languages. Some PIE roots have variants with*s appearing initially: such*s is calleds-mobile.
The "laryngeals" may have been fricatives, but there is no consensus as to their phonetic realization.
The phonemes*h₁, *h₂, *h₃ (or*ə₁, *ə₂, *ə₃ and*/ə/), marked with cover symbol*H (also denoting "unknown laryngeal"), stand for three "laryngeal" phonemes. The termlaryngeal as a phonetic description is largely obsolete, retained only because its usage has become standard in the field.
The phonetic values of the laryngeal phonemes are disputable; various suggestions for their exact phonetic value have been made, ranging from cautious claims that all that can be said with certainty is that*h₂ represented africative pronounced far back in the mouth, and that*h₃ exhibitedlip-rounding up to more definite proposals; e.g.Meier-Brügger writes that realizations of*h₁ =[h],*h₂ =[χ] and*h₃ =[ɣ] or[ɣʷ] "are in all probability accurate".[4] Another commonly cited speculation for*h₁*h₂*h₃ is[ʔʕʕʷ] (e.g. Beekes). Simon (2013)[5] has argued that theHieroglyphic Luwian sign *19 stood for/ʔa/ (distinct from/a/) and represented the reflex of*h₁. It is possible, however, that all three laryngeals ultimately fell together as a glottal stop in some languages. Evidence for this development inBalto-Slavic comes from the eventual development of post-vocalic laryngeals into a register distinction commonly described as "acute" (vs. "circumflex" register on long vocalics not originally closed by a laryngeal) and marked in some fashion on all long syllables, whether stressed or not; furthermore, in some circumstances original acute register is reflected by a "broken tone" (i.e. glottalized vowel) in modernLatvian.
Theschwa indogermanicum symbol*ə is sometimes used for a laryngeal between consonants, in a "syllabic" position.
In a phonological sense, sonorants in Proto-Indo-European were those segments that could appear both in the syllable nucleus (i.e. they could be syllabic) and out of it (i.e. they could be non-syllabic). PIE sonorants consist of liquids, nasals and glides: more specifically,*r, *l, *n, *y (or*i̯) are non-labial sonorants, grouped with the cover symbolR, while labial sonorants*m, *w (or*u̯), are marked with the cover symbolM. All of them had syllabic allophones, transcribed*r̥, *l̥, *m̥, *n̥, *i, *u, which generally were used between consonants, word-initially before a consonant, or word-finally after a consonant. Even though*i and*u were certainly phonetic vowels, they behave phonologically as syllabic sonorants.[ŋ] was an allophone of*n before velar consonants.
Some of the changes undergone by the PIE consonants in daughter languages are the following:
Sanskrit, Greek, and Germanic, along with Latin to some extent, are the most important for reconstructing PIE consonants, as all of these languages keep the three series of stops (voiceless, voiced and voiced-aspirated) separate. In Germanic,Verner's law and changes to labiovelars (especially outside ofGothic) obscure some of the original distinctions; but on the other hand, Germanic is not subject to the dissimilations ofGrassmann's law, which affects both Greek and Sanskrit. Latin also keeps the three series separate, but mostly obscures the distinctions among voiced-aspirated consonants in initial position (all except*gʰ become/f/) and collapses many distinctions in medial position. Greek is of particular importance for reconstructing labiovelars, as other languages tend to delabialize them in many positions.
Anatolian and Greek are the most important languages for reconstructing the laryngeals. Anatolian directly preserves many laryngeals, while Greek preserves traces of laryngeals in positions (e.g. at the beginning of a word) where they disappear in many other languages, and reflects each laryngeal different from the others (the so-calledtriple reflex) in most contexts.Balto-Slavic languages are sometimes valuable in reconstructing laryngeals since they are relatively directly represented in the distinction between "acute" and "circumflex" vowels.Old Avestan faithfully preserves numerous relics (e.g. laryngeal hiatus, laryngeal aspiration, laryngeal lengthening) triggered by ablaut alternations in laryngeal-stem nouns, but the paucity of the Old Avestan corpus prevents it from being more useful.Vedic Sanskrit preserves the same relics rather less faithfully, but in greater quantity, making it sometimes useful.
| short | long | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| front | back | front | back | |
| Close | (*i) | (*u) | ||
| Mid | *e | *o | *eː | *oː |
| Open | *a? | *aː? | ||
It is disputed how many vowels Proto-Indo-European has, or even what counts as a "vowel" in the language. It is generally agreed that at least four vowel segments existed, which are typically denoted as*e, *o, *ē and*ō. All of them are morphologically conditioned to varying extents. The long vowels are less common than the short vowels, and their morphological conditioning is especially strong, suggesting that at an earlier stage there may not have been a length opposition, and a system with as few as two vowels (or even only one vowel, according to some researchers) may have existed.
The surface vowels*i and*u were extremely common, and syllabic sonorants*r̥, *l̥, *m̥, *n̥ existed, but these sounds are usually analyzed as syllabic allophones of thesonorant consonants*y, *w, *r, *l, *m, *n.[6] The syllabic and non-syllabic versions of these sounds alternate in the inflectional paradigms of words such as*dóru ('tree, wood') (reconstructed with genitive singular*dréws and dative plural*drúmos) or in the derivation of words such as the noun*yugóm ('yoke') with*u, from the same root as the verb*yewg- ('to yoke, harness, join') with*w. Some authors (e.g.Ringe (2006)) have argued that there is substantial evidence for reconstructing a non-alternating phoneme*i in addition to an alternating phoneme*y as well as weaker evidence for a non-alternating phoneme*u.[7]
Furthermore, all the daughter languages have a segment*a, and those with long vowels generally have long/aː/,/iː/,/uː/. Until the mid-20th century, PIE was reconstructed with all of those vowels. Modern versions incorporating the laryngeal theory, however, tend to view these vowels as later developments of sequences involving the PIE laryngeal consonants*h₁, *h₂, *h₃. For example, what used to be reconstructed as PIE*ā is now often reconstructed as*eh₂;*ī,*ū are now reconstructed as*iH*uH (*H representing any laryngeal) and*a has various origins, among which are a "syllabic"[H̥] (any laryngeal not adjacent to a vowel) or an*e next to the "a-coloring" laryngeal*h₂e. (Though they may havephonetically contained the vowel[a] in spoken PIE, it would be anallophone of*e, not an independent phoneme.) Some researchers, however, have argued that an independent phoneme *a must be reconstructed, and it cannot be traced back to any laryngeal.[8]
Any sonorant consonant can comprise the second part of a complex syllable nucleus; all can form diphthongs with any of the vowels*e, *o, *ē, *ō (such as*ow).
It is generally accepted that PIE did not allow vowels word-initially.[dubious –discuss] Vowel-initial words in earlier reconstructions are now usually reconstructed as beginning with one of the three laryngeals, which disappeared before a vowel (after coloring it, if possible) in all daughter languages except Hittite.
With particular morphological (such as a result ofProto-Indo-European ablaut) and phonological conditions (like in the last syllable of nominative singular of a noun ending on sonorant, in root syllables in the sigmatic aorist, etc.; compareSzemerényi's law,Stang's law) vowels*e and*o would lengthen, yielding respective lengthened-grade variants. The basic lexical forms of words contained therefore only short vowels; forms with long vowels,*ē and*ō, appeared from well-established morphophonological rules.
Lengthening of vowels may have been a phonologically-conditioned change in Early Proto-Indo-European, but at the period just before the end of Proto-Indo-European, which is usually reconstructed, it is no longer possible to predict the appearance of all long vowels phonologically, as the phonologically-justified resulting long vowels have begun to spread analogically to other forms without being phonologically justified. The prosodically-long*e in*ph₂tḗr 'father' results by the application ofSzemerényi's law, a synchronic phonological rule that operated within PIE, but prosodically-long*o in*pṓds 'foot' was analogically levelled.
It is possible that Proto-Indo-European had a few morphologically isolated words with the vowel*a: *dap- 'sacrifice' (Latindaps, Ancient Greekdapánē, Old Irishdúas) or appearing as a first part of a diphthong*ay: *laywos 'left' (Latinlaevus, Ancient Greeklaiós,OCSlěvъ). The phonemic status of *a has been fiercely disputed; Beekes[9] concludes: "There are thus no grounds for PIE phoneme*a"; his former student, Alexander Lubotsky, reaches the same conclusion.[10]
After the discovery of Hittite and the development of the laryngeal theory, almost every instance of previous*a could be reduced to the vowel*e preceded or followed by the laryngeal*h₂ (rendering the previously reconstructed short and long*a, respectively). The following arguments can be set forth against recognizing*a as a phoneme of PIE:
However, others, likeManfred Mayrhofer,[11] argue that*a and*ā phonemes existed independently of*h₂. This phoneme appears to be present in reconstructions such as*albʰós ("white"),*átta ("father"), or*apó ("away") where the absence of a laryngeal is suggested by the respective Hittite descendants;𒀠𒉺𒀸 (al-pa-aš, "cloud"),𒀜𒋫𒀸 (at-ta-aš, "father"),𒀀𒀊𒉺 (a-ap-pa, "behind").
Ancient Greek reflects the original late PIE vowel system (after the vowel-coloring and lengthening effects of the laryngeals) most faithfully, with few changes to vowels in any syllable, but its loss of certain consonants, especially*s, *w and*y, often triggered acompensatory lengthening or contraction of vowels inhiatus, which can complicate reconstruction.
Sanskrit andAvestan merge*e, *a and*o into a single vowel*a (with a corresponding merger in the long vowels) but reflect PIE length differences (especially from the ablaut) even more faithfully than Greek, and they do not have the same issues with consonant loss as Greek. Furthermore,*o can often be reconstructed byBrugmann's law and*e by itspalatalization of a preceding velar (seeProto-Indo-Iranian language).
Germanic languages show a merger of short*a and*o (toProto-Germanic *a) and long*ā and*ō (to Proto-Germanic *ō) as well as a merger of*e and*i in non-initial syllables, but (especially in the case ofGothic) they are still important for reconstructing PIE vowels.
Evidence fromAnatolian andTocharian can be significant because of their conservatism, but are often difficult to interpret. Tocharian, especially, has complex and far-reaching vowel innovations.
Italic languages andCeltic languages do not unilaterally merge any vowels, but have such far-reaching vowel changes (especially in Celtic and the extreme vowel reduction of earlyLatin) that they are somewhat less useful.Albanian andArmenian are the least useful, as they are attested relatively late, have borrowed heavily from other Indo-European languages and have complex and poorly understood vowel changes.
InProto-Balto-Slavic, short*o and*a were merged. A separate reflex of the original*o or*a is, however, argued to have been retained in some environments as a lengthened vowel because ofWinter's law. Subsequently, EarlyProto-Slavic merged*ō and*ā, which were retained in theBaltic languages. Additionally, accentual differences in some Balto-Slavic languages indicate whether the post-PIE long vowel originated from a genuine PIE lengthened grade or is a result of compensatory lengthening before a laryngeal.
PIE had a freepitch accent, which could appear on any syllable and whose position often varied among different members of a paradigm (e.g. between singular and plural of a verbal paradigm, or between nominative/accusative and oblique cases of a nominal paradigm). The location of the pitch accent is closely associated withablaut variations, especially between normal-grade vowels (/e/ and /o/) and zero-grade vowels (i.e. lack of a vowel).
Generally, thematic nouns and verbs (those with a "thematic vowel" between root and ending, usually /e/ or /o/) had afixed accent, which (depending on the particular noun or verb) could be either on the root or the ending. These words also had no ablaut variations within their paradigms. (However, accent and ablaut were still associated; for example, thematic verbs with root accent tended to have e-grade ablaut in the root, while those ending accent tended to have zero-grade ablaut in the root.) On the other hand, athematic nouns and verbs usually hadmobile accent, with varied betweenstrong forms, with root accent and full grade in the root (e.g. the singular active of verbs, and the nominative and accusative of nouns), andweak forms, with ending accent and zero grade in the root (e.g. the plural active and all forms of the middle of verbs, and the oblique cases of nouns). Some nouns and verbs, on the other hand, had a different pattern, with ablaut variation between lengthened and full grade and mostly fixed accent on the root; these are termedNarten stems. Additional patterns exist for both nouns and verbs. For example, some nouns (so-calledacrostatic nouns, one of the oldest classes of noun) have fixed accent on the root, with ablaut variation between o-grade and e-grade, whilehysterodynamic nouns have zero-grade root with a mobile accent that varies between suffix and ending, with corresponding ablaut variations in the suffix.
The accent is best preserved inVedic Sanskrit and (in the case of nouns)Ancient Greek. It is also reflected to some extent in theaccentual patterns of theBalto-Slavic languages (e.g.Latvian,Lithuanian andSerbo-Croatian). It is indirectly attested in some phenomena in other PIE languages, especially theVerner's law variations in theGermanic languages. In other languages (e.g. theItalic languages andCeltic languages) it was lost without a trace. Other than inModern Greek, the Balto-Slavic languages and (to some extent)Icelandic, few traces of the PIE accent remain in any modern languages.
A number of phonological rules can be reconstructed for Proto-Indo-European. It has been argued, however, that some of these rules took place in daughter branches rather than in Proto-Indo-European itself.
Szemerényi's law deleted word-finals orh₂ when preceded by a sonorant and a vowel, triggering compensatory lengthening of the vowel: -VRs, -VRh₂ > VːR. For example:
This rule was no longer productive in late PIE, and many potential examples were restored by analogy. For example, the genitive singular of neuter nouns in-men- is reconstructed as-mén-s rather than-mḗn. It was grammaticalised for the nominative singulars of nouns ending in a sonorant, as well as the nominoaccusative of neuter collectives. By analogy, several nouns ending in other consonants also acquired a long vowel in the nominative singular, but retained the-s ending where possible, e.g.*pṓd-s,*dyḗw-s.
Stang's law affects sequences of final consonants, much like Szemerényi's law, but the result is to delete the second-last consonant rather than the final one. Specifically,w is deleted when between a vowel and a finalm, again with compensatory lengthening: Vwm > *Vːm.
Some linguists include an additional rule to deleteh₂ before finalm: *Vh₂m > *Vːm.
PIE generally disallowed two of the same consonant to appear next to each other. Various rules were employed in order to eliminate such sequences.
When two of the same sonorant or*s appeared in sequence and were preceded by a vowel, one of the two was deleted. Additionally, if the sequence was word-final, the preceding vowel received compensatory lengthening.
In a sequence of dental stops, an epenthetic*s was inserted between them.*h₁ed-ti 'eateth' >*h₁etsti > Hittiteezzi.This rule has been preserved in Hittite where cluster *tst is spelled asz (pronounced as [ts]). The cluster was often simplified to -ss- in the later descendants (Latin and Germanic among others). Sanskrit does not have the rule (Bartholomae's law takes precedence instead), but it does occur in Iranian.*h₁ed-ti 'eateth' > Sanskritátti*bʰudʰ-to-s > Sanskritbuddhá, but Avestanbusta.
If a sonorant followed a dental sequence, one of the dentals was deleted. The evidence is conflicting on which dental was deleted.
Siebs' law is related to the feature ofs-mobile: whenever it is added to a root that begins with a voiced or aspirated stop, that stop is devoiced. If the stop was aspirated, it might retain its aspiration in some branches. For example:*bʰr̥Hg- > Latinfragor, but*sbʰr̥Hg- >*sp(ʰ)r̥Hg- > Sanskritsphūrjati
A thorn cluster is any sequence of a dental stop followed by a velar stop. In the IE branches other than Anatolian and Tocharian, thorn clusters undergo metathesis, and in many, the dental alsoassibilates. For example, for the noun*dʰéǵʰ-ōm, genitive*dʰǵʰ-m-és, Hittite hastēkan,tagnās,dagān and Tocharian Atkaṃ,tkan-, but these forms appear in Sanskritkṣā́ḥ and Ancient Greek askhthṓn. Sanskrit has assibilation of the cluster*kt tokṣ, while Greek has metathesis alone.
The following cases illustrate some possible outcomes of the metathesis:
Thorn clusters presented a problem in the reconstruction of some cognate sets in which Indo-Iranian sibilants in clusters with dorsals exceptionally correspond to coronal stops in certain other branches (particularly in Greek). 'Bear' and 'decaying' above are examples; another is Sanskrittákṣan 'artisan' vs. Greektéktōn 'carpenter'. As was the case with the laryngeal theory, these cognate sets were first noted prior to the connection of Anatolian and Tocharian to PIE, and early reconstructions posited a new series of consonants to explain these correspondences. Brugmann 1897's systematic explanation augmented the PIE consonant system with a series ofinterdentals (nowhere directly attested) appearing only in clusters with dorsals, *kþ *kʰþʰ *gð *gʰðʰ. The use of the letterthorn led to the name "thorn cluster" for these groups.
Once discovered, Anatolian and Tocharian evidence suggested that the original form of the thorn clusters was, in fact, *TK, so that the development outside Anatolian and Tocharian involved ametathesis. The conventional notations *þ *ð *ðʰ for the second elements of these metathesised clusters are still found, and some, including Fortson,[12] continue to hold to the view that interdental fricatives were involved at some stage of PIE. An alternative interpretation (e.g. Vennemann 1989,[13] Schindler 1991 (informally and unpublished)[14]) identifies these segments as alveolar affricates[t͡sd͡z]. In this view, thorn clusters developed as TK > TsK > KTs and then variously in daughter languages; this has the advantage that the first change can be identified with the dental assibilation rule above, which is then broadened in application to affrication of dental stops before any stops. Melchert has interpreted the CuneiformLuwianīnzagan- 'inhumation', probably [ind͡zɡan], from*h₁en dʰǵʰōm 'in the earth', as preserving the intermediate stage of this process.[12]
Once the laryngeal theory was developed, and the rules for sound change of laryngeals worked out, it was clear that there were a number of exceptions to the rules, in particular with regard to "syllabic" laryngeals (former "schwa indogermanicum") that occurred in non-initial syllables. It was long suggested that such syllabic laryngeals were simply deleted in certain daughter languages; this is based especially on the PIE worddʰugh₂tér- "daughter", which appears in a number of branches (e.g. Germanic, Balto-Slavic) with no vowel in place of expected /a/ for "syllabic" /h₂/ (cf. English "daughter", Gothicdaúhtar). With a better understanding of the role of ablaut, however, and a clearer understanding of which roots did and did not have laryngeals in them, it became apparent that this suggestion cannot be correct. In particular, there are some cases where syllabic laryngeals in medial syllables delete in most or all daughter languages, and other cases where they do not delete even in Germanic and/or Balto-Slavic.
This has led to the more recent idea that PIE had a number of synchronic "laryngeal deletion" rules, where syllabic laryngeals in particular contexts were deleted even in the protolanguage. In the case of*dʰugh̥₂tér-, for example, it appears that PIE had an alternation between a "strong" stem*dʰugh̥₂tér- and a "weak" stem*dʰugtr-, where a deletion rule eliminated the laryngeal in the latter context but not the former one. Forms in daughter languages with the laryngeal (Ancient Greekthugátēr, Sanskritduhitṛ) or without the laryngeal (Gothicdauhtar, Lithuanianduktė̃) are due to analogical generalization of one or the other protoforms.
This is a new area, and as a result, there is no consensus on the number and nature of the deletion rules. A wide variety of rules have been proposed; Ringe[15] identifies the following three as the most likely candidates (where C=any consonant, V=any vowel, H=any laryngeal, R=any resonant):
It seems unlikely that this is a correct and complete description of the actual phonological rules underlying laryngeal deletion. These rules do not account for all the potential cases of laryngeal deletion (hence the many other rules that have been proposed); for example, the laryngeal in the desiderative suffixes *-h₁s- and *-h₁sy- appears to delete after an obstruent but not a resonant. In any case, it is difficult to determine when a particular laryngeal loss is due to a protolanguage rule versus an instance of later analogy. In addition, as synchronic phonological rules the set of above rules is more complicated than what is expected from a cross-linguistic standpoint, suggesting that some of the rules may have already been "morphologized" (incorporated into the morphology of certain constructions, such as the o-grade noun-forming rule or the rule forming y-presents); the above-mentioned laryngeal deletion in the desiderative suffixes may be an example of such morphologization.
Proto-Indo-European roots mostly have the syllable structure(*s)(C)CVC(C) or(H)(C)CVC(C),[16] where C is any consonant,[17] V is any vowel orsyllabic consonant, and H is any laryngeal. Roots which appear to beVC- are actuallyHVC- (e.g.*h₁es-, "to be") and roots that appear to beCV- areCVH- (e.g.*steh₂-, "to stand"). In some cases, however, presence of a laryngeal before apparentVC- roots cannot be proven, especially for those with initial*h₁-. PIE most likely could not have*r- alone in the onset of a root's syllable (apparent occurrences were*Hr-). Roots which ended in laryngeals are sometimes calleddisyllabicroots, as descendants in later languages would yield a disyllabic root, such as*ḱerh₂- "to mix", which later becamekera in Greek.[16] In PIE itself, though, roots were always monosyllabic. Roots usually followed thesonority hierarchy, thus**ḱret- could possibly be a root, but**ḱetr- could not. There are also restrictions that govern what consonants can occur in a root; a root cannot have two or more voiced consonants (e.g.**gerd- is impossible), and a root cannot have both unvoiced and aspirated consonants (e.g.**gʰet- is impossible), except for when the root starts with*s- (e.g.*steygʰ-, "to march, to ascend").[16]
Nominal suffixes almost always have the syllable structure-VC- or-CVC-. More complex formations are possible, usually having no (ablauting) vowel (e.g.*-tuh₂t-), but are quite rare. Suffixes with two consonants following the vowel always ended in*-t (e.g. *-ent-, *-went-).
Nominal case endings almost always have the forms -(C)(V)C or -(C)V, with most of the exceptions occurring in the plural (e.g.*óHom). Verb endings usually have the form -(C)CV (e.g.*-mi).
The Indo-European ablaut is a system ofapophony (i.e. variations in the vowels of related words, or different inflections of the same word) in the Proto-Indo-European language. This was used in numerous morphological processes, usually being secondary to a word's inflectional ending. It is the most common source of apophony in Indo-European languages today.
Proto-Indo-European vowels had 5 differentgrades, or forms, they could be in:
| Zero | Short | Long |
|---|---|---|
| ∅ | e | ē |
| o | ō |
If a syllable had plain*e, it is termed "e-grade" or "full-grade", and if a syllable had*ē, it is termed "lengthened e-grade"; likewise if a syllable had*o, it is termed "o-grade", and if a syllable had*ō, it is termed "lengthened o-grade". When a syllable had no vowel at all, it is termed "zero-grade" (sometimes written "∅-grade"). The vowels *u and *i do not alternate in this way, and thus are often referred to as "non-ablauting" or "not ablauting", sometimes even not being referred to as vowels at all.[17]
{{cite book}}:ISBN / Date incompatibility (help)