List of Indo-European languages

This is a list of languages in the Indo-European language family. It contains a large number of individual languages, together spoken by roughly half the world's population.

Indo-European languages worldwide by country
  Official or primary language
  Secondary official language
  Recognized
  Significant
  No use
The approximate present-day distribution of the Indo-European branches within their homelands of Europe and Asia:
  Albanian
  Armenian
  Balto-Slavic (Baltic)
  Balto-Slavic (Slavic)
  Celtic
  Germanic
  Hellenic (Greek)
  Indo-Iranian (Indo-Aryan, Iranian, and Nuristani)
  Italic (Romance)
  Non-Indo-European languages
Dotted/striped areas indicate where multilingualism is common.
The approximate present-day distribution of Indo-European languages within the Americas by country:
Romance:
  Spanish
  Portuguese
  French
Germanic:
  English
  Dutch
Part of a series on
Indo-European topics
Languages
Extant
Extinct
Reconstructed
Hypothetical
Grammar
Other
Philology
Origins
Mainstream
Alternative and fringe
Archaeology
Chalcolithic (Copper Age)

Pontic Steppe

Caucasus

East Asia

Eastern Europe

Northern Europe

Bronze Age

Pontic Steppe

Northern/Eastern Steppe

Europe

South Asia

Iron Age

Steppe

Europe

Caucasus

India
Peoples and societies
Bronze Age
Iron Age

Indo-Aryans

Iranians

East Asia

Europe

Middle Ages

East Asia

Europe

Indo-Aryan

Iranian
Religion and mythology
Reconstructed
Historical

Indo-Aryan

Iranian

Others

Europe

Practices
Indo-European studies
Scholars
Institutes
Publications

Numbers of languages and language groups

The Indo-European languages include some 449 (SIL estimate, 2018 edition[1]) languages spoken by about 3.5 billion people or more (roughly half of the world population). Most of the major languages belonging to language branches and groups in Europe, and western and southern Asia, belong to the Indo-European language family. This is thus the biggest language family in the world by number of mother tongue speakers (but not by number of languages: by this measure it is only the 3rd or 5th biggest). Eight of the top ten biggest languages, by number of native speakers, are Indo-European. One of these languages, English, is the de facto world lingua franca, with an estimate of over one billion second language speakers.

Indo-European language family has 10 known branches or subfamilies, of which eight are living and two are extinct. Most of the subfamilies or linguistic branches in this list contain many subgroups and individual languages. The relationships between these branches (how they are related to one another and branched from the ancestral proto-language) are a matter of further research and not yet fully known. There are some individual Indo-European languages that are unclassified within the language family; they are not yet classified in a branch and could constitute a separate branch.

The 449 Indo-European languages identified in the SIL estimate, 2018 edition,[1] are mostly living languages. If all the known extinct Indo-European languages are added, they number more than 800 or close to one thousand. This list includes all known Indo-European languages, living and extinct.

What constitutes a language?

The distinction between a language and a dialect is not clear-cut and simple: in many areas there is a dialect continuum, with transitional dialects and languages. Further, there is no agreed standard criterion for what amount of differences in vocabulary, grammar, pronunciation and prosody are required to constitute a separate language, as opposed to a mere dialect. (Mutual intelligibility can be considered, but there are closely related languages that are also mutual intelligible to some degree, even if it is an asymmetric intelligibility.) Because of this, in this list, several dialect groups and some individual dialects of languages are shown (in italics), especially if a language is or was spoken by a large number of people and over a large land area, but also if it has or had divergent dialects.

Summary of historical development

The ancestral population and language, Proto-Indo-Europeans that spoke Proto-Indo-European, are estimated to have lived about 4500 BCE (6500 BP). At some point in time, starting about 4000 BCE (6000 BP), this population expanded through migration and cultural influence. This started a complex process of population blend or population replacement, acculturation and language change of peoples in many regions of western and southern Eurasia.[2] This process gave origin to many languages and branches of this language family.

By around 1000 BCE, there were many millions of Indo-European speakers, and they lived in a vast geographical area which covered most of western and southern Eurasia (including western Central Asia).

In the following two millennia the number of speakers of Indo-European languages increased even further.

Indo-European languages continued to be spoken in large land areas, although most of western Central Asia and Asia Minor were lost to other language families (mainly Turkic) due to Turkic expansion, conquests and settlement (after the middle of the first millennium AD and the beginning and middle of the second millennium AD respectively) and also to Mongol invasions and conquests (which changed Central Asia ethnolinguistic composition). Another land area lost to non-Indo-European languages was today's Hungary, due to Magyar/Hungarian (Uralic language speakers) conquest and settlement.

However, from about AD 1500 onwards, Indo-European languages expanded their territories to North Asia (Siberia), through Russian expansion, and North America, South America, Australia and New Zealand as the result of the age of European discoveries and European conquests through the expansions of the Portuguese, Spanish, French, English and the Dutch. (These peoples had the biggest continental or maritime empires in the world and their countries were major powers.)

The contact between different peoples and languages, especially as a result of European colonization, also gave origin to the many pidgins, creoles and mixed languages that are mainly based in Indo-European languages (many of which are spoken in island groups and coastal regions).

Ancestral (Proto-Indo-European)

Dating the split-offs of the main branches
Indo-European migrations as described in The Horse, the Wheel, and Language by David W. Anthony

Although all Indo-European languages descend from a common ancestor called Proto-Indo-European, the kinship between the subfamilies or branches (large groups of more closely related languages within the language family), that descend from other more recent proto-languages, is not the same because there are subfamilies that are closer or further, and they did not split-off at the same time, the affinity or kinship of Indo-European subfamilies or branches between themselves is still an unresolved and controversial issue and being investigated.

However, there is some consensus that Anatolian was the first group of Indo-European (branch) to split-off from all the others and Tocharian was the second in which that happened.[3]

Using a mathematical analysis borrowed from evolutionary biology, Donald Ringe and Tandy Warnow propose the following tree of Indo-European branches:[4]

David W. Anthony, following the methodology of Donald Ringe and Tandy Warnow, proposes the following sequence:[4]

List of Indo-European protolanguages
Scheme of Indo-European language dispersals from c. 4000 to 1000 BCE according to the widely held Kurgan hypothesis.
– Centre (5th.-4th. mill. BCE - Proto-Indo-European): Steppe cultures (West Eurasian Steppe, Pontic–Caspian steppe)
1 (black): Anatolian languages (early / archaic PIE)
2 (black): Afanasievo culture (ancestral to Tocharians and Tocharian languages) (middle PIE)
3 (black): Yamnaya culture expansion (Pontic–Caspian steppe, Danube Valley) (late PIE) (southwest black line): Proto-Italic, Proto-Celtic and other possible Indo-European branches
4A (black): Western Corded Ware
[NN] (black): pre-Proto-Germanic
[NN] (dark yellow): proto-Balto-Slavic (Balto-Slavic languages of the Baltic and Slavic peoples)
4B-C (blue & dark blue): Bell Beaker; adopted by Indo-European speakers
5A-B (Fatyanova-Abashevo) (red): Eastern Corded ware
5C (red): Sintashta (proto-Indo-Iranian)
6 (magenta): Andronovo
7A (purple): Indo-Aryans (Mittani)
7B (purple): Indo-Aryans (Āryāvarta, modern northern India and Pakistan, later expanding towards Sri Lanka and the Maldives)
8 (grey): proto-Greek
9 (yellow): proto-Iranian (Iranian languages of the Iranian peoples)
– [not drawn]: Armenian, expanding from western steppe and settling in the Armenian Highlands by a western or an eastern route. Geographical group of languages known as Paleo-Balkan in the Balkans, included Dacian, Moesian, Thracian, Brygian (Balkan Phrygian), Paeonian, Illyrian, and Dalmato-Pannonian.

The protolanguages that developed into the Indo-European languages

This is not a list of just Proto-Indo-European, but it also contains the protolanguages of Indo-European subfamilies or branches and their hypothetical relation between themselves.

The list below follows Donald Ringe, Tandy Warnow and Ann Taylor classification tree for Indo-European branches.[5] quoted in Anthony, David W. (2007), The Horse, the Wheel and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World, Princeton University Press.

Anatolian languages (all extinct)
Anatolian languages in 2nd millennium BC; Blue: Luwian, Yellow: Hittite, Red: Palaic.

Tocharian languages (Agni-Kuči languages) (all extinct)
Tocharian languages A (blue), B (red) and C (green) in the Tarim Basin.[31] Tarim oasis towns are given as listed in the Book of Han (c. 2nd century BC). The areas of the squares are proportional to population.

Albanian language
Distribution of modern Albanian dialects.

Italic languages
Iron Age Italy (c.500 B.C.). Italic languages in green colours.
Length of the Roman rule and the Romance Languages[36]
Romance languages in Europe (major dialect groups are also shown).
European extent of Romance languages in the 20th century
Eastern and Western Romance areas split by the La Spezia–Rimini Line; Southern Romance is represented by Sardinian as an outlier.
Romance languages in the World. Countries and sub-national entities where one or more Romance languages are spoken. Dark colours: First language, Light colours: Official or Co-Official language; Very Light colours: Spoken by a significant minority as first or second language. Blue: French; Green: Spanish; Orange: Portuguese; Yellow: Italian; Red: Romanian.

Celtic languages
Diachronic distribution of Celtic language speakers:
  core Hallstatt territory, by the 6th century BCE
  maximal Celtic expansion, by 275 BCE
  Lusitanian and Vettonian area of Iberian Peninsula where Celtic presence is uncertain, Para-Celtic?
  the six Celtic nations which retained significant numbers of Celtic speakers into the Early Modern period
  areas where Celtic languages remain widely spoken today
Animated Map – Celtic languages over time from 900 BC to 2000 AD. Note: The inclusion of Lusitanian and Tartessian as Celtic is not accepted by all.
Britain and Ireland in the first few centuries of the 1st millennium, before the founding of Anglo-Saxon kingdoms.
  Mainly Goidelic areas.
  Mainly Pictish areas.
  Mainly Brittonic areas.
Goidelic language and culture would eventually become dominant in the Pictish area and far northern Brittonic area.
A map of the modern distribution of the Celtic languages. Red: Welsh; Purple: Cornish; Black: Breton; Green: Irish; Blue: Scottish Gaelic: Yellow: Manx. Areas where languages overlap are shown in stripes.
Map of the Gaelic-speaking world. The red area shows the maximum extent of Old Irish (common ancestor of Irish, Scottish Gaelic and Manx); the orange area shows places with Ogham inscriptions; and the green area are modern Gaelic-speaking areas. Orkney and Shetland islands were never majority Scots Gaelic or Scottish Gaelic speaking.
Linguistic division in early twelfth century Scotland:
  Gaelic speaking ("Scots" here refers to Scots Gaelic not to Germanic Scots)
  Norse-Gaelic zone, characterized by the use of both languages
  English-speaking zone
  Cumbric may have survived in this zone; more realistically a mixture of Cumbric, Gaelic (west) and English (east)

Hellenic languages
Distribution of Greek dialects in Greece in the classical period.[45]
Distribution of Greek dialects in Magna Graecia (Southern Italy and Sicily) in the classical period.
The distribution of major modern Greek dialect areas.
Anatolian Greek until 1923. Demotic in yellow. Pontic in orange. Cappadocian in green. Green dots indicate Cappadocian-Greek-speaking villages in 1910.[46]

Armenian language
Armenian dialects, according to Adjarian (1909) (before 1st World War and Armenian Genocide). In many regions of the contiguous area shown in the map, Armenian speakers were the majority or a significant minority.
Modern geographical distribution of the Armenian language.

Germanic languages
One proposed theory for approximate distribution of the primary Germanic dialect groups in Europe around the year 1 AD. East Germanic
  East Germanic
Northwest Germanic West Germanic
  Elbe Germanic
  Weser-Rhine Germanic
  North Sea Germanic
North Germanic
  North Germanic
Germanic languages and main dialect groups in Europe after 1945.
Germanic languages in the World. Countries and sub-national entities where one or more Germanic languages are spoken. Dark Red: First language; Red: Official or Co-Official language, Pink: Spoken by a significant minority as second language.

Ruhland-Finsterwalde-Luckau-Märkisch Buchholz and about Lusatian Neisse

Balto-Slavic languages
Area of Balto-Slavic dialect continuum (purple) with proposed material cultures correlating to speakers Balto-Slavic in Bronze Age (white). Red dots= archaic Slavic hydronyms.
Political map of Europe with countries where a Slavic language is a national language marked in shades of green and where a Baltic language is a national language marked in light orange. Wood green represents East Slavic languages, pale green represents West Slavic languages, and sea green represents South Slavic languages. Contemporary Baltic languages are all from the same group: Eastern Baltic
Baltic languages (extinct languages shown in stripes).
Slavic languages in Europe (2008). Areas where languages overlap are shown in stripes.
Russian Language – Map of all the areas where the Russian language is the language spoken by the majority of the population. Russian is the biggest Slavic language both in number of first language speakers and in geographical area where the language is spoken (a vast land area of Eastern Europe and North Asia – Siberia, i.e. most of Northern Eurasia).

Baltic languages

Slavic languages

Indo-Iranian languages
Geographic distribution of modern Indo-Iranian languages. Blue, dark purple and green colour shades: Iranic languages. Dark pink: Nuristani languages. Red, light purple and orange colour shades: Indo-Aryan languages. Areas where languages overlap are shown in stripes.

Iranian languages
Map of Attested and Hypothetical Old Indo-Iranian Dialects. Indo-Iranian languages descend from the language spoken by the Sintashta Culture people that lived in the plains beyond the southeast Ural Mountains, between the upper Ural and Tobol rivers basins. Old Iranian languages (shown in green), were spoken in a large Eurasian landmass area that included most of south Eastern Europe, south west Siberia, Central Asia, including parts of western China, and the Iranian Plateau. The Scythian languages (including Saka), that belonged to the Northern Eastern Iranian languages subgroup, were the ones with the biggest geographical distribution, they were spoken in most of the steppe and desert areas of Eastern Europe and Central Asia, matching most of the western half of the Eurasian steppe, which corresponds to modern southern European Russia and south Russian west Siberia and parts of southern central Siberia, modern southern Ukraine, an enclave in the east Pannonian Basin, in modern Hungary, all of modern Kazakhstan, parts of modern Xinjiang, in Western China, modern Kyrgyzstan, and parts of modern Uzbekistan and modern Turkmenistan.[62] Later Scythian languages were also present in northern India by migration of part of the ancient Iranian peoples forming the Indo-Scythians. This was the geographical distribution until the first centuries A.D., after that time, Turkic migration and conquests along with Turkification, made many ancient Iranian languages go extinct.
Approximate distribution of Iranic peoples in Central Asia during the Iron Age.
Distribution of modern Iranian Languages (detailed map showing genealogical relations between languages in a table) (grey areas, in the deserts of central Iran and in eastern Tajikistan's Pamir Mountains, are uninhabited; white areas do not have a majority of Iranian languages speakers, although some areas have significant minorities of Iranian languages speakers as first language or as a second language, especially in Iran and in Afghanistan but also in Pakistan and Turkey). (Pamir languages is an areal group not a genealogical one).

Nuristani languages (Kamozian)[75]
Nuristan Province in Afghanistan, where most speakers live.

Transitional Iranian-Indo-Aryan[76][77] (older name: Kafiri) (according to some scholars[78][75] there is the possibility that the older name "Kapisi" that was synonymal of Kambojas, related to the ancient Kingdom of Kapisa, in modern-day Kapisa Province, changed to "Kafiri" and came to be confused and assimilated with "kafiri", meaning "infidel" in Arabic and used in Muslim religion)

Nuristani languages.

Indo-Aryan languages
Present-day geographical distribution of the major Indo-Aryan language groups. Romani, Domari, Kholosi and Lomavren are outside the scope of the map. Colours indicate the branches – yellow is Eastern, purple is Dardic, blue is Northwestern, red is Southern, green is Western, brown is Northern and orange is Central. Data is from "The Indo Aryan Languages" as well as census data and previous linguistic maps.Dardic
  Pashai (Dardic)
  Chitrali (Dardic)
  Shina (Dardic)
  Kohistani (Dardic)
  Kashmiri (Dardic)
Northwestern
  Punjabi (Northwestern)
  Sindhi (Northwestern)
Western
  Rajasthani (Western)
  Gujarati (Western)
  Bhili (Western)
  Khandeshi (Western)
Northern
  Himachali-Dogri (= W. Pahari, Northern)
  Garhwali-Kumaoni (= C. Pahari, Northern)
  Nepali (= E. Pahari, Northern)
Central
  Western Hindi (Central)
  Eastern Hindi (Central)
Eastern
  Bihari (Eastern)
  Bengali-Assamese (Eastern)
  Odia (Eastern)
  Halbi (Eastern)
Southern
  Marathi-Konkani (Southern)
  Sinhala-Maldivian (Southern)
(not shown: Kunar (Dardic), Chinali-Lahuli).
Distribution of Indo-Aryan groups of languages. Urdu is included under Hindi. Romani, Domari, and Lomavren are outside the scope of the map.) Dotted/striped areas indicate where multilingualism is common.
  Dardic
  Northwestern
  Northern
  Western
  Central
  Eastern
  Southern
Romani languages and dialects in Europe. Romani languages are part of the Indo-Aryan branch of Indo-European languages but are spoken out of the Indian Subcontinent. They are related to the Domari languages (spoken by the Doma or Dom) and are scattered and minority languages in all regions, overlapping with other peoples and their languages in Europe. The Domari and Romani languages are spoken in a vast geographical area from Southwest Asia to Europe and North Africa but are minoritary and scattered in all the regions in part because Domari and Romani speakers, the Doma and the Roma, were traditionally nomadic peoples.

Unclassified Indo-European languages (all extinct)

Indo-European languages whose relationship to other languages in the family is unclear

Possible Indo-European languages (all extinct)

Unclassified languages that may have been Indo-European or members of other language families (?)

  • Cypro-Minoan
  • Elymian
  • Eteocypriot
  • Hunnic-Xiongnu language or languages (possibly the same or part of the same)
    • Hunnic (possibly part, related or descend from the older language of the Xiongnu) – there is a hypothesis that endorses the possibly that Hunnic belonged to the Scythian branch of Iranic language group (other hypotheses uphold Hunnic was a Turkic or Yenisean language) (Huns were a tribal confederation of different peoples and tribes, not necessarily of the same origin, because of that, even if not the most, there may have been an Indo-European linguistic element)
    • Xiongnu (Huns may have been related, part of them or descend from them) – spoken by the Xiongnu tribes in Central Mongolia and northeast China (other hypotheses uphold Xiongnu language was a Turkic or Yenisean language) (Xiongnu were a tribal confederation of different peoples and tribes, not necessarily of the same origin, because of that, even if not the most, there may have been an Indo-European linguistic element)
  • Minoan
  • Paleo-Corsican – unattested, only inferred from toponymic evidence.
  • Paleo-Sardinian – unattested, only inferred from toponymic evidence and a presumed substratum in Sardinian.
  • Philistine – spoken by Philistines in coastal Canaan, mainly in the southwest coast, it may have been an Anatolian, Hellenic or Illyrian language.
  • Tartessian – part of Celtic, Pre-Celtic Indo-European, Anatolian, a divergent branch of Indo-European or an Indo-European related language family?
  • Trojan – spoken in Troy (Wilusa as the city was known by the Hittites) and the Troad (Taruiša as the region was known by the Hittites), may have been Luwian (an Anatolian language) or Greek (a Hellenic language), all the former languages were members of branches part of the Indo-European language family; or an Etruscan language (Non-Indo-European language, possibly part of the Tyrsenian language family).

Hypothetical Indo-European languages (all extinct)
According to Allentoft (2015), the Sintashta culture probably derived at least partially from the Corded Ware culture. Nordqvist and Heyd (2020) confirm this.

See also

References
  1. "Ethnologue report for Indo-European". Ethnologue.com.
  2. Allentoft, Morten E.; Sikora, Martin; Sjögren, Karl-Göran; Rasmussen, Simon; Rasmussen, Morten; Stenderup, Jesper; Damgaard, Peter B.; Schroeder, Hannes; Ahlström, Torbjörn; Vinner, Lasse; Malaspinas, Anna-Sapfo; Margaryan, Ashot; Higham, Tom; Chivall, David; Lynnerup, Niels; Harvig, Lise; Baron, Justyna; Casa, Philippe Della; Dąbrowski, Paweł; Duffy, Paul R.; Ebel, Alexander V.; Epimakhov, Andrey; Frei, Karin; Furmanek, Mirosław; Gralak, Tomasz; Gromov, Andrey; Gronkiewicz, Stanisław; Grupe, Gisela; Hajdu, Tamás; et al. (2015). "Population genomics of Bronze Age Eurasia". Nature. 522 (7555): 167–172. Bibcode:2015Natur.522..167A. doi:10.1038/nature14507. PMID 26062507. S2CID 4399103.
  3. KAPOVIĆ, Mate. (ed.) (2017). The Indo-European Languages. ISBN 978-0-367-86902-1
  4. Anthony, David W. (2007), The Horse, the Wheel and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World, Princeton University Press
  5. Ringe, Don; Warnow, Tandy.; Taylor, Ann. (2002). 'Indo-European and Computational Cladistics', Transactions of the Philological Society, n.º 100/1, 59-129.
  6. Working hypothesis 1: PIE 1 and Anatolian The homeland of PIE 1—ancestral to all Indo-European, including the Anatolian branch — was more probably south of, or possibly in, the Caucasus than on the Pontic–Caspian steppe. The speakers of PIE 1 were probably not closely associated genetically with the ‘Steppe component’, that is, ~50 EHG and ~50% CHG. In its unrevised form, the steppe hypothesis is that the parent language of all Indo-European, including the Anatolian branch, what is called here PIE 1, came from the Pontic–Caspian steppe. Thus far, the archaeogenetic evidence—including that published in the two seminal papers of 2015 — has supported the Pontic–Caspian steppe as the homeland of PIE 2 (ProtoIndo-European after Anatolian branched off) rather than PIE 1. Therefore, on this basic matter, the new evidence has not confirmed the steppe hypothesis. in KOCH, John T. "Formation of the Indo-European branches in the light of the Archaeogenetic Revolution" draft of paper read at the conference 'Genes, Isotopes and Artefacts. How should we interpret the movement of people throughout Bronze Age Europe?' Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna, 13-14 December 2018.
  7. It is possible that there were other IE branches that died out completely unattested. in KOCH, John T. "Formation of the Indo-European branches in the light of the Archaeogenetic Revolution" draft of paper read at the conference 'Genes, Isotopes and Artefacts. How should we interpret the movement of people throughout Bronze Age Europe?' Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna, 13-14 December 2018.
  8. Working hypothesis 2: PIE 2, Afanasievo, and Tocharian The homeland of PIE 2—following the branching off of Anatolian, but before the branching off of Tocharian — was the Pontic–Caspian steppe. There was a general close association between speakers of PIE 2 and users of the Yamnaya material culture and a genetic population with the Steppe component (~50% EHG : ~50% CHG). in KOCH, John T. "Formation of the Indo-European branches in the light of the Archaeogenetic Revolution" draft of paper read at the conference 'Genes, Isotopes and Artefacts. How should we interpret the movement of people throughout Bronze Age Europe?' Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna, 13-14 December 2018.
  9. Working hypothesis 3: The Beaker expansion and the genetic and linguistic heterogeneity of the Beaker People The earliest Beaker package arose amongst speakers of a non-Indo-European language by the Tagus estuary in present-day central Portugal ~2800 BC. Beaker material was adopted by speakers of Indo-European as it spread east and north from its place of origin. in KOCH, John T. "Formation of the Indo-European branches in the light of the Archaeogenetic Revolution" draft of paper read at the conference 'Genes, Isotopes and Artefacts. How should we interpret the movement of people throughout Bronze Age Europe?' Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna, 13-14 December 2018.
  10. Kruta, Venceslas (1991). The Celts. Thames & Hudson
  11. Ivšić, Dubravka. "Italo-Celtic Correspondences in Verb Formation". In: Studia Celto-Slavica 3 (2010): 47–59. DOI: doi:10.54586/IPBD8569
  12. Watkins, Calvert, "Italo-Celtic Revisited". In:Birnbaum, Henrik; Puhvel, Jaan, eds. (1966). Ancient Indo-European dialects. Berkeley: University of California Press. pp. 29–50. OCLC 716409
  13. Working hypothesis 6: Non-IE influence in the West and the separation of Celtic from ItaloCeltic 1. The Beaker phenomenon spread when a non-Indo-European culture and identity from Atlantic Europe was adopted by speakers of Indo-European with Steppe ancestry ~2550 BC. 2. Interaction between these two languages turned the Indo-European of Atlantic Europe into Celtic. 3. That this interaction probably occurred in South-west Europe is consistent with the historical location of the Aquitanian, Basque, and Iberian languages and also aDNA from Iberia indicating the mixing of a powerful, mostly male instrusive group with Steppe ancestry and indigenous Iberians beginning ~2450 BC, resulting in total replacement of indigenous paternal ancestry with R1b-M269 by ~1900 BC. 4. The older language(s) survived in regions that were not integrated into the Atlantic Bronze Age network. ¶NOTE. This hypothesis should not be construed as a narrowly ‘Out of Iberia’ theory of Celtic. Aquitanian was north of Pyrenees. Iberian in ancient times and Basque from its earliest attestation until today are found on both sides of the Pyrenees. The contact area envisioned is Atlantic Europe in general and west of the CWC zone bounded approximately by the Rhine. in KOCH, John T. "Formation of the Indo-European branches in the light of the Archaeogenetic Revolution" draft of paper read at the conference 'Genes, Isotopes and Artefacts. How should we interpret the movement of people throughout Bronze Age Europe?' Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna, 13-14 December 2018.
  14. Kruta 1991, pp. 54–55
  15. Tamburelli, Marco; Brasca, Lissander (2018-06-01). "Revisiting the classification of Gallo-Italic: a dialectometric approach". Digital Scholarship in the Humanities. 33 (2): 442–455. doi:10.1093/llc/fqx041. ISSN 2055-7671
  16. Prósper, Blanca Maria; Villar, Francisco (2009). "NUEVA INSCRIPCIÓN LUSITANA PROCEDENTE DE PORTALEGRE". EMERITA, Revista de Lingüística y Filología Clásica (EM). LXXVII (1): 1–32. Retrieved 11 June 2012.
  17. Villar, Francisco (2000). Indoeuropeos y no indoeuropeos en la Hispania Prerromana [Indo-Europeans and non-Indo-Europeans in Pre-Roman Hispania] (in Spanish) (1st ed.). Salamanca: Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca. ISBN 84-7800-968-X. Retrieved 22 September 2014 – via Google Books.
  18. Brixhe, Claude (2002). "Interactions between Greek and Phrygian under the Roman Empire". In Adams, J. N.; Janse, M.; Swaine, S. (eds.). Bilingualism in Ancient Society: Language Contact and the Written Text. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-924506-2.
  19. cite journal|Hrach Martirosyan “Origins and historical development of the Armenian language” in Journal of Language Relationship, International Scientific Periodical, n.º10 (2013). Russian State University for the Humanities, Institute of Linguistics of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
  20. Martirosyan, Hrach (2014). "Origins and Historical Development of the Armenian Language" (PDF). Leiden University: 1–23. Retrieved 5 August 2019.
  21. I. M. Diakonoff The Problem of the Mushki Archived August 25, 2011, at the Wayback Machine in The Prehistory of the Armenian People.
  22. Working hypothesis 4: PIE 6, Corded Ware cultures, Germanic/Balto-Slavic/Indo-Iranian, and Alteuropäisch ~2800–2550 BC the region of Corded Ware cultures (CWC) in northern Europe—bounded approximately by the Rhine in the west and the Volga in the east—was the territory of an Indo-European dialect continuum ancestral to the Indo-Iranian, Balto-Slavic, and Germanic branches. in KOCH, John T. "Formation of the Indo-European branches in the light of the Archaeogenetic Revolution" draft of paper read at the conference 'Genes, Isotopes and Artefacts. How should we interpret the movement of people throughout Bronze Age Europe?' Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna, 13-14 December 2018.
  23. The separation of the Pre-Germanic dialect from the Pre-Balto-Slavic/Indo-Iranian, and its reorientation towards Pre-Italo-Celtic, was the result of Beaker influence in the western CWC area that began ~2550 BC. in KOCH, John T. "Formation of the Indo-European branches in the light of the Archaeogenetic Revolution" draft of paper read at the conference 'Genes, Isotopes and Artefacts. How should we interpret the movement of people throughout Bronze Age Europe?' Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna, 13-14 December 2018.
  24. One important finding of ringe et al. 2002 (a version of whose tree model is Fig. 2 here) is the difficulty encountered in seeking the place of Germanic within the first-order subgroupings of Indo-European. They offer the following plausible explanation, which takes on new meaning in light of archaeogenetic evidence. "This split distribution of character states leads naturally to the hypothesis that Germanic was originally a near sister of Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian (possibly before the satem sound changes spread through that dialect continuum, if that was what happened); that at that very early date it lost contact with its more easterly sisters and came into closer contact with the languages to the west; and that contact episode led to extensive vocabulary borrowing at the period before the occurrence in any of the languages of any distintive sound changes that would have rendered the borrowing detectable. (p. 111)." in Ringe, Don; Warnow, Tandy.; Taylor, Ann. (2002). 'Indo-European and Computational Cladistics', Transactions of the Philological Society, n.º 100/1, 59-129. quoted in KOCH, John T. "Formation of the Indo-European branches in the light of the Archaeogenetic Revolution" draft of paper read at the conference 'Genes, Isotopes and Artefacts. How should we interpret the movement of people throughout Bronze Age Europe?' Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna, 13-14 December 2018.
  25. Mallory, J. P. (1997). "Thracian language". In Mallory, J. P.; Adams, Douglas Q. (eds.). Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture. Taylor & Francis. p. 576.
  26. Working hypothesis 5: Eastern CWC, Sintashta, Andronovo, and the attested Indo-Iranian languages After Pre-Germanic reoriented towards Italo-Celtic, in the context of the Beaker phenomenon in Central Europe ~2550–2200 BC, the satəm and RUKI linguistic innovations spread through the remainder of the Balto-Slavic/Indo-Iranian continuum. The dialect(s) at the eastern end of CWC developed towards Indo-Iranian. The Abashevo culture between the Don and southern Urals (~2500–1900 BC) is a likely candidate for the Pre-Indo-Iranian homeland. The Sintashta culture, east of the southern Urals ~2100–1800 BC, can be identified as a key centre from which an early stage of Indo-Iranian spread via the Andronovo horizon of central Asia ~2000–1200 BC to South and South-west Asia by 1500 BC. That Indo-Iranian came as a reflux from north-eastern Europe (rather than a direct migration from Yamnaya on the Pontic–Caspian steppe) is shown by the European Middle Neolithic (EMN) ancestry present in Sintashta individuals and carried forward to Andronovo and South Asian populations. in KOCH, John T. "Formation of the Indo-European branches in the light of the Archaeogenetic Revolution" draft of paper read at the conference 'Genes, Isotopes and Artefacts. How should we interpret the movement of people throughout Bronze Age Europe?' Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna, 13-14 December 2018.
  27. https://www.uni-wuerzburg.de/en/news-and-events/news/detail/news/new-indo-european-language-discovered/
  28. https://languagehat.com/kalasmaic-a-new-ie-language/
  29. https://arkeonews.net/a-new-indo-european-language-discovered-in-the-hittite-capital-hattusa/
  30. https://greekreporter.com/2023/09/23/new-indo-european-language-ancient-hatussa/
  31. Mallory, J.P.; Mair, Victor H. (2000), The Tarim Mummies, London: Thames & Hudson, pp. 67, 68, 274, ISBN 0-500-05101-1.
  32. Krause, Todd B.; Slocum, Jonathan. "Tocharian Online: Series Introduction". University of Texas at Austin. Retrieved 17 April 2020.
  33. Beckwith, Christopher I. (2009), Empires of the Silk Road: A History of Central Asia from the Bronze Age to the Present, Princeton University Press, ISBN 978-0-691-15034-5.
  34. Voynikov, Zhivko. (?). Some ancient Chinese names in East Turkestan and Central Asia and the Tocharian question.
  35. "Niya Tocharian: language contact and prehistory on the Silk Road". cordis.europa.eu. Retrieved 2023-01-05.
  36. Bereznay, András (2011). Erdély történetének atlasza [Atlas of the History of Transylvania] (in Hungarian). Méry Ratio. p. 63. ISBN 978-80-89286-45-4.
  37. Pellegrini G., Carta dei dialetti d'Italia, CNR – Pacini ed., Pisa, 1977
  38. Vignuzzi 1997: 312, 317; Loporcaro & Panciani 2016: 229, 233
  39. Menéndez Pidal, Ramón. (2005). Historia de la Lengua Española (2 Vols.). Madrid: Fundación Ramón Menendez Pidal. ISBN 84-89934-11-8
  40. Wright, Roger. (1982). Late Latin and Early Romance in Spain and Carolingian France. Liverpool: University of Liverpool (Francis Cairns, Robin Seager). ISBN 0-905205-12-X
  41. Marcos Marín, Francisco. (1998). "Romance andalusí y mozárabe: dos términos no sinónimos", Estudios de Lingüística y Filología Españolas. Homenaje a Germán Colón. Madrid: Gredos, 335–341. https://www.academia.edu/5101871/Romance_andalusi_y_mozarabe_dos_terminos_no_sinonimos_
  42. DIAS, Felisberto Luís Ferreira. (1998). "Origens do Português Micaelense. Abordagem diacrónica do sistema vocálico" in A Voz Popular. Ponta Delgada: Universidade dos Açores
  43. BARCELOS, João Maria Soares de. (2008) Dicionário de falares dos Açores, vocabulário regional de todas as ilhas.
  44. MIKOŁAJCZAK, Sylwia. (2014). "Características fonéticas do Português da Ilha Terceira" in Studia Iberystyczne.
  45. Roger D. Woodard (2008), "Greek dialects", in: The Ancient Languages of Europe, ed. R. D. Woodard, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 51.
  46. Dawkins, R.M. 1916. Modern Greek in Asia Minor. A study of dialect of Silly, Cappadocia and Pharasa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  47. "Ancient Macedonian". MultiTree: A Digital Library of Language Relationships. Retrieved 28 March 2016.
  48. "Gothic language | Origins, History & Vocabulary | Britannica". www.britannica.com.
  49. "East Germanic languages | History, Characteristics & Dialects | Britannica". www.britannica.com.
  50. MacDonald Stearns, Das Krimgotische. In: Heinrich Beck (ed.), Germanische Rest- und Trümmersprachen, Berlin/New York 1989, p. 175–194, here the chapter Die Dialektzugehörigkeit des Krimgotischen on p. 181–185
  51. Harm, Volker (2013), "Elbgermanisch", "Weser-Rhein-Germanisch" und die Grundlagen des Althochdeutschen, in Nielsen; Stiles (eds.), Unity and Diversity in West Germanic and the Emergence of English, German, Frisian and Dutch, North-Western European Language Evolution, vol. 66, pp. 79–99
  52. C. A. M. Noble: Modern German Dialects. Peter Lang, New York / Berne / Frankfort on the Main, p. 131
  53. Instituut voor de Nederlandse Taal: De Geïntegreerde Taal-Bank:
    Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal (WNT), entry VlamingI;
    cp.: Oudnederlands Woordenboek (ONW), entry flāmink: "Morfologie: afleiding, basiswoord (substantief): flāma ‘overstroomd gebied’; suffix: ink ‘vormt afstammingsnamen’"; Vroegmiddelnederlands Woordenboek (VMNW), entry Vlaendren: "Etymologie: Dat.pl. van flandr- 'overstroomd gebied' met het suffix -dr-.".
    Cognate to Middle English flēm 'current of a stream': Middle English Compendium → Middle English Dictionary (MED): flēm n.(2)
  54. Oxford English Dictionary, "Holland, n. 1," etymology.
  55. Dyers, Charlyn (2016). "The Conceptual Evolution in Linguistics: implications for the study of Kaaps". Multilingual Margins. 3 (2): 61–72 – via Research Gate.
  56. "Oostelike Afrikaans (Oosgrensafrikaans)". May 10, 2018.
  57. Hamans, Camiel (9 October 2021). . ciplnet.com. Retrieved 28 September 2022.
  58. Coetzee, Olivia M. (2 November 2021). . Words Without Borders. Retrieved 28 September 2022.
  59. Hendricks, Frank (7 November 2018). "The nature and context of Kaaps: a contemporary, past and future perspective". Multilingual Margins: A Journal of Multilingualism from the Periphery. 3 (2): 6–39. doi:10.14426/mm.v3i2.38. ISSN 2221-4216. S2CID 197552885.
  60. "The medieval 'New England': A forgotten Anglo-Saxon colony on the north-eastern Black Sea coast" https://www.caitlingreen.org/2015/05/medieval-new-england-black-sea.html
  61. Vakhtin, Nikolai; Golovko, Eugeniy; Schweitzer, Peter (2004).
  62. Simpson, St John (2017). "The Scythians. Discovering the Nomad-Warriors of Siberia". Current World Archaeology. 84: 16–21. "nomadic people made up of many different tribes thrived across a vast region that stretched from the borders of northern China and Mongolia, through southern Siberia and northern Kazakhstan, as far as the northern reaches of the Black Sea. Collectively they were known by their Greek name: the Scythians. They spoke Iranian languages..."
  63. https://www.academia.edu/104507618/A_Partial_Decipherment_of_the_Unknown_Kushan_Script
  64. https://portal.uni-koeln.de/en/universitaet/aktuell/press-releases/single-news/research-group-deciphers-enigmatic-ancient-script
  65. https://www.classicult.it/en/the-so-called-unknown-kushan-script-partially-deciphered-language-named-eteo-tocharian/
  66. https://www.archaeology.org/news/11600-230719-unknown-kushan-script
  67. https://iranicaonline.org/articles/chorasmia-iii
  68. "The Avestan texts contain no historical allusions and can therefore not be dated exactly, but Old Avestan is a language closely akin to the oldest Indic language, used in the oldest parts of the Rigveda, and should therefore probably be dated to about the same time. This date is also somewhat debated, though within a relatively small time span, and it seems probable that the oldest Vedic poems were composed over several centuries around the middle of the 2nd millennium B.C.E. (see, e.g., Witzel, 1995)", quoted in https://iranicaonline.org/articles/iran-vi1-earliest-evidence
  69. "Young Avestan is grammatically close to Old Persian, which ceased being spoken in the 5th-4th centuries B.C.E. These two languages were therefore probably spoken throughout the first half of the first millennium B.C.E. (see, e.g., Skjærvø, 2003-04, with further references)." in https://iranicaonline.org/articles/iran-vi1-earliest-evidence
  70. The Young Avesta contains a few geographical names, all belonging to roughly the area between Chorasmia and the Helmand, that is, the modern Central Asian republics and Afghanistan (see, e.g., Skjærvø, 1995; Witzel, 2000). We are therefore entitled to conclude that Young Avestan reflects the language spoken primarily by tribes from that area. The dialect position of the language also indicates that the language of the Avesta must have belonged to, or at least have been transmitted by, tribes from northeastern Iran (the change of proto-Iranian *-āḭā/ă- > *-ayā/ă- and *ǰīwa- > *ǰuwa- “live,” for instance, is typical of Sogdian, Khotanese, Pashto, etc. in https://iranicaonline.org/articles/iran-vi1-earliest-evidence).
  71. It was long thought that Avestan represented "Old Bactrian", but this notion had "rightly fallen into discredit by the end of the 19th century", in Gershevitch, Ilya (1983), "Bactrian Literature", in Yarshater, Ehsan (ed.), Cambridge History of Iran, vol. 3, Cambridge: Cambridge UP, pp. 1250–1258, ISBN 0-511-46773-7.
  72. Henning (1960), p. 47. Bactrian thus "occupies an intermediary position between Pashto and Yidgha-Munji on the one hand, Sogdian, Choresmian, and Parthian on the other: it is thus in its natural and rightful place in Bactria".
  73. Waghmar, Burzine K. (2001) 'Bactrian History and Language: An Overview.' Journal of the K. R. Cama Oriental Institute, 64. pp. 45.
  74. Antje Wendtland (2009), The position of the Pamir languages within East Iranian, Orientalia Suecana LVIII "The Pamir languages are a group of East Iranian languages which are linguistically quite diverse and cannot be traced back to a common ancestor. The term Pamir languages is based on their geographical position rather than on their genetic closeness. Exclusive features by which the Pamir languages can be distinguished from all other East Iranian languages cannot be found either."
  75. Sir Thomas H. Holdich, in his classic book, (The Gates of India, p 102-03), writes that the Aspasians (Aspasioi) represent the modern Kafirs. But the modern Kafirs, especially the Siah-Posh Kafirs (Kamoz/Camoje, Kamtoz) etc are considered to be modern representatives of the ancient Kambojas.
  76. "There are three possible hypotheses, each of which has found supporters: (i) the Nuristani languages are part of the Iranian family, but separated at a very early stage from the main stream of Iranian languages; (ii) they are part of the Indo-Aryan family, but separated from Indo-Aryan in pre-Vedic times; and (iii) they are neither Indian nor Iranian but represent a third branch of the Aryan family" in Almuth Degener – Indo-Iranian Languages and Peoples (pp.103–117).
  77. "Richard Strand's Nuristân Site: Peoples and Languages of Nuristân". nuristan.info. Retrieved 2021-04-23.
  78. See also: Ancient Kamboja, People & the Country, 1981, p 278, These Kamboj People, 1979, pp 119–20, K. S. Dardi etc.
  79. Burrow, T. (1936). "The Dialectical Position of the Niya Prakrit". Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies, University of London. 8 (2/3): 419–435. doi:10.1017/S0041977X00141060. JSTOR 608051. S2CID 170991822.
  80. Telegin, D. 2005. The Yamnaya culture and the Indo-European Homeland Problem. Journal of Indo-European Studies. 33 (3 & 4): 339–358
  81. Saag et al. 2021, pp. 8. "The Fatyanovo Culture people were the first farmers in the area and the arrival of the culture has been associated with migration... This is supported by our results as the Stone Age HG and the Bronze Age Fatyanovo individuals are genetically clearly distinguishable... [T]he Fatyanovo Culture individuals (similarly to other CWC people) have mostly Steppe ancestry, but also some EF ancestry which was not present in the area before and thus excludes the northward migration of Yamnaya Culture people with only Steppe ancestry as the source of Fatyanovo Culture population. The strongest connections for Fatyanovo Culture in archaeological material can be seen with the Middle Dnieper Culture... These findings suggest present-day Ukraine as the possible origin of the migration leading to the formation of the Fatyanovo Culture and of the Corded Ware cultures in general... [I]t has been suggested that the Fatyanovo Culture people admixed with the local Volosovo Culture HG after their arrival in European Russia. Our results do not support this as they do not reveal more HG ancestry in the Fatyanovo people compared to other CWC groups or any visible change in ancestry proportions during the period covered by our samples."
  82. Nordqvist & Heyd 2020, p. 82.
  83. Mallory & Adams 1997, pp. 541–542.
  84. Kuzmina 2007, p. 452.
  85. Parpola, Asko, (2020). "Royal 'Chariot' Burials of Sanauli near Delhi and Archaeological Correlates of Prehistoric Indo-Iranian Languages", in Studia Orientalia Electronica, Vol. 8, No. 1, Oct 23, 2020, p.188.
  86. Mallory & Mair 2008, p. 261.
  87. Anthony 2007, pp. 408–411.
  88. Beckwith 2009, p. 49: "Archaeologists are now generally agreed that the Andronovo culture of the Central Steppe region in the second millennium BC is to be equated with the Indo-Iranians."
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.