LING 322

MIDDLE ENGLSH: LANGUAGE AND CHANGE

The road to PROTO INDO EUROPEAN (PIE)

The origin of language

Problematic

Recent work in comparative linguistics suggests that all, or almost all,

attested human languages may derive from a single earlier language.

Hypotheses of origin

Continuity theory: Complexity of language indicates gradual evolution from pre-

linguistic systems among early primates

Discontinuity theory: Human language is unique and cannot be compared

to any non-human system, so language must have

appeared fairly suddenly in human evolution

Monogenesis: a single proto-language between 200,000 and 50,000 years ago

Polygenesis: languages evolved in several lineages independent of one another

Complicating factors in the search for origins

Time

languages develop and change in a variety of ways

Diverge

Diachronic change

Converge

Two or more unrelated languages in contact acquire and display

similar linguistic features not inherited from their respective proto-

languages

Replacement

Speakers gradually shift to a completely different language

Complete loss

A crucial part of the language jigsaw is lost : Hittite

The First Language

Genetic and archaeological evidence suggests that Homo Sapiens originated

in and spread from East Africa, so maybe an ancestor of the Khoisan languages,

spoken around 50,000 years ago

Evidence?

The nature of reconstructed proto-languages suggests older languages made

more phonological and morphological distinctions than their descendants.

Evidence cited includes

Khoisan languages have ‘click’ sounds, no language has developed them.

Phoneme inventories reduce the further they are from Khoisan languages.

East ǃXoon dialect: Non-click consonantsLabial Dental Alveolar Palatal Velar Uvular Glottal

Plosive voiced d dz ɡ ɢ ~ ɴɢ

tenuis p* t ts k q ʔ

voiceless

aspirated

pʰ* tʰ tsʰ kʰ qʰ

voiced aspirated

(breathy voiced?)

dtʰ

(dʱ)

dtsʰ

(dzʱ)

ɡkʰ* ɢqʰ ~

ɴɢqʰ

voiceless ejective tʼ* tsʼ kʼ*, kxʼ (?) (qʼ)

voiced ejective dtsʼ ɡkxʼ

Fricative voiceless f* s x h*

Nasal voiced m n ɲ (ŋ)

glottalized ˀm ˀn

Other (β) (l) (dʲ ~ j)

noisy clicks ‘sharp’ clicks

bilabial dental lateral alveolar palatal

kʘ kǀ kǁ kǃ kǂ

kʘʰ* kǀʰ kǁʰ kǃʰ kǂʰ

ɡʘ ɡǀ ɡǁ ɡǃ ɡǂ

ɡʘh ɡǀh ɡǁh ɡǃh ɡǂh

ŋʘ ŋǀ ŋǁ ŋǃ ŋǂ

ŋ̊ʘ ŋ̊ǀ ŋ̊ǁ ŋ̊ǃ ŋ̊ǂ

↓ŋ̊ʘʰ ↓ŋ̊ǀʰ ↓ŋ̊ǁʰ ↓ŋ̊ǃʰ ↓ŋ̊ǂʰ

kʘˀ kǀˀ kǁˀ kǃˀ kǂˀ

(kʘʼ?)*

ˀŋʘ ˀŋǀ ˀŋǁ ˀŋǃ ˀŋǂ

qʘ qǀ qǁ qǃ qǂ

(qʘʰ?)*

ɢʘ ɢǀ ɢǁ ɢǃ ɢǂ

ɢǀh ɢǃh ɢǂh

kʘˣ kǀˣ kǁˣ kǃˣ kǂˣ

ɡʘx ɡǀx ɡǁx ɡǃx ɡǂx

qʘʼ qǀʼ qǁʼ qǃʼ qǂʼ

kʘʼqʼ kǀʼqʼ kǁʼqʼ kǃʼqʼ kǂʼqʼ

ɡʘqʼ ɡǀqʼ ɡǁqʼ ɡǃqʼ ɡǂqʼ

East ǃXoon dialect: Click consonants

Relatively recent work

(i) The word order in the ancestral language was SOV

(ii) Except for cases of diffusion, the direction of syntactic change,

when it occurs, has been for the most part SOV > SVO and,

beyond that, SVO > VSO / VOS with a subsequent reversion to

SVO occurring occasionally. Reversion to SOV occurs only through

diffusion.

(iii) Diffusion, although important, is not the dominant process in

the evolution of word order.

(iv) The two extremely rare word orders (OVS and OSV) derive

directly from SOV.

Murray Gell-Mann and Merritt Ruhlen, The origin and evolution of word order

PNAS 2011 October, 108 (42) 17290-17295. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1113716108

Nostracists and the Nostratic hypothesis

In 1903 Holger Pedersen proposed ‘Nostratic’ (< Latin nostrāsour countryman’) a common ancestor for

Indo-European Finno-Ugric Samoyed Turkish Mongolian

Manchu Yukaghir Eskimo Semitic Hamitic

Spoken between 15,000 and 12,000 years ago

Study picked up by the Russians in the 1960s, and has continued Holger Pedersen

elsewhere until now

Controversial!

Language families included in Nostratic not always agreed on

Language families proposed for inclusion in Nostratic vary

Nostratic Reconstructions are themselves based on proto-languagereconstructions

Nostratic English

(IPA)

/KʼelHæ wetʼei ʕaKʼun kæhla/ Language is a ford through the river of time,

/kʼat͡ɬai palhVkʼV na wetæ/ it leads us to the dwelling of those gone before;

/ɕa da ʔakʼV ʔeja ʔælæ/ but he cannot arrive there,

/jakʼo pele tʼuba wete/ who fears deep water.

Uncertain values: Kʼ could be /kʼ/ or /qʼ/

H could be /h/ or /ħ/

V / ʌ = uncertain vowel.

IF you are interested

Relatively recent work

Allan Bomhard: Toward Proto-Nostratic a new approach to the comparison

Ebook of Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Afroasiatic.

Allan R Bomhard John C Kerns: The Nostratic macrofamily : a study in

Call No. 410 B69 distant linguistic relationship

Nostratic Dictionary

Aharon Dolgopolsky’s Nostratic Dictionary seems to be widely

and freely available on the interweb as a PDF.

45000 years later . . .

Proto-Indo-European (PIE)

PIE is not the ‘original’ language, it is not even the earliest form of itself. It is

the earliest ‘point’ that the parent language can be identified

It has been reconstructed using the comparative method

Putative date: 4000 BC (Late Neolithic)

At least 1500–2000 years between Proto-Indo-European language and the earliest

attested IE language (Hittite)

PIE is the most widespread language family, although no direct evidence of it

remains.

IE SUBGROUPS

Subgroup Earliest documents

CELTIC 500 AD

GERMANIC 500 AD (Gothic)

ITALIC 700 BC (Old Latin)

GREEK 1500 BC (Mycenean), 800 BC (Homer)

ALBANIAN 1500 AD

ARMENIAN 500 AD

BALTIC 1500 AD

SLAVIC 900 AD

IRANIAN 600 BC (Avestan)

INDIC 1500 BC (Vedic) 800 BC (Classical)

TOKHARIAN 700 AD

ANATOLIAN 1500 BC (Hittite)

Proto-Indo-European Urheimat

Broadly agreed stages of development

A homeland on the East Ukrainian / South Russian steppes.

Spread into Europe, the Middle East, and central Asia

Formation of daughter languages

PIE ‘Urheimat’ hypotheses

Archaeology suggests a group of related populations scattered over a vast

homeland. Linguistically, this does not hold up.

‘bee’ and ‘birch’

4 principle locations suggested:

1. The Pontic Steppes (present day Ukraine) c4100 BC. Supported by

archaeology. (Gimbutas, Mallory)

2. Pontic-Caspian c4500-3000 BC. Archaeology agrees with reconstructed

Indo-European customs.

3. Central Europe / Balkans c5000 BC. Some archaeological evidence.

4. Anatolia c7000-6000 BC. Archaeology and PIE language reconstruction

say too early.

PIE Semantics

Reconstructed forms reveal a culture with:

A patrilineal kinship system

Domesticated cattle, sheep, horses and dogs

Agriculture and cereal cultivation

A climate with winter snow, cold climate vegetation

Water transportation

Technology; tools, weapons, the plough and solid wheel

Polytheistic religion, including a *dyeus ph2tēr

Heroic poetry and song lyrics

What does this confirm about PIE language?

Reconstruction of the consonant system of PIE.

Cognate sets

Old English Latin Greek Sanskrit

FOOT fo:t ped- pod- pa:d-

FATHER fæder pater pate:r pitar-

SLEEP swefan sopor hypnos svapati

OVER, ABOVE ofer super huper upari

Correspondence f p p p

PIE *p

Exercise 1:

Old English Latin Greek Sanskrit

YOU (Singular) θu:/θe: tu:/te: tu /toi tvam/te

THREE θri: tre:s treis trayas

TURN weorθan werto: - varta:mi

BROTHER bro:θor fra:ter phra:te:r bhra:tar

Correspondence

PIE

θ t t t

*t

Exercise 2.

Old English Latin Greek Sanskrit

WHAT? hwæt kwid ti cid

FOLLOW saihwan (Gothic) sekwor hepomai sacate

LEAVE li:hwan (Gothic) linkwo: leipo: rikta

CIRCLE,

WHEEL

hwe:ogol kolo:

(‘dwell’)

kuklos, cakram

Correspondences

PIE

hw k(w) p / t / k c / k

*kw

stop → affricate → fricative →placeless

approximant→ no sound

affrication →spirantization

(deaffrication)→ debuccalization → elision

[p] or [pʰ]

→ [pɸ] → [ɸ] →

[h] → (zero)

→ [pf] → [f] →

[t] or [tʰ]

→ [tθ] → [θ] →

→ [ts] → [s] →

[k] or [kʰ] → [kx] → [x] →

Note: the change voiceless stop > fricative is more common than voiceless stop >

affricate > fricative.

Lenition

Proto-Indo-European consonants

Labial dental

Velar

Laryngealpalatal plain

labio-

velar

Oral

stops

*p (*b) *t *d *ḱ *ǵ *k *g *kʷ *gʷ

asp. *bʰ *dʰ *ǵʰ *gʰ *gʷʰ

Nasal stops *m *n

Fricative *s*h₁, *h₂,

*h₃

Lateral *l

Trill *r

Semivowels *y *w

PIE Phonology: traditional reconstruction

Proto Indo-European (PIE)

Some vowel Correspondences

Gothic Latin Greek Sanskrit PIE

IS ist est esti asti *e

I ic ego: ego: aham *e

EIGHT ahtau okto: okto: astau *o

NIGHT nahts nokt- - nakt- *o

FROM,AWAY af ab apo apa *a

FIELD akrs agr- agros ajras *a

MOTHER mo:dor ma:te:r me:te:r ma:tar *a:WIDOW

widuwo: widua e:itʰeos vidhava *iYOKE

juk jugum zugon yugam *u

Proto-Indo-European Laryngeals

Most Indo-Europeanists accept some version of laryngeal theory because it

simplifies some hard-to-explain sound changes and patterns of alternation that

appear in various Indo-European languages.

Ferdinand de Saussure first posited influential, but now missing, sounds to

explain irregular vowel correspondences. He called them coéfficents sonantiques

and wrote them *ə₁ *ə₂ *ə₃

The revelation of Hittite

Anatolian languages the only Indo-European languages where laryngeals are

attested directly and consistently as consonantal sounds.

Otherwise, their presence is inferred by the effects they had on neighbouring

sounds.

PIE vowels

The only proper vowels are /e o a/ These segments are always syllabic.

e o

a

The sonants (j w r l m n) are peculiar in that they are both syllabic (vowels) and

consonants, depending on what sounds are adjacent

*i and *u

phonetically vowels, phonologically they were non-syllabic sonorants. These are

sometimes called ‘vocoids’ (a sound made with an open oral cavity such that

there is little audible friction in the mouth)

Indo-European had eight cases:

Nominative (nom.) subject of a finite verb

Accusative (acc.) direct object of a verb

Genitive (gen.) possessive (N’s and of)

Dative (dat.) indirect object

Ablative (abl.) movement from something, or the cause of something

Vocative (voc.) marks an addressee

Locative (loc.) indicates a location

Instrumental (inst.) marks a noun used in performing an action

Problems

Disagreement over reconstructed inflections, because some endings (e.g. the

genitive plural) are difficult to reconstruct

Dual endings of cases are controversial. They are not widely attested and

diverge greatly where they are.

PIE Morphology

NOUN Inflections

Singular Dual Plural

Animate Neuter Animate Neuter Animate Neuter

Nominative *-s, *-Ø

*-m, *-Ø*-h₁(e)

*-ih₁*-es

*-h₂, *-ØVocative *-Ø

Accusative *-m *-ih₁ *-ns

Instrumental *-(e)h₁ *-bʰih₁ *-bʰi

Dative *-(e)i *-me *-mus

Ablative*-(o)s

*-ios *-ios

Genitive *-h₁e *-om

Locative *-i, *-Ø *-h₁ou *-su

PIE Morphology

PIE roots predominantly monosyllabic with a basic shape CVC(C).

Variable word stress

New words derived by:

Derivational affixes e.g. (é)-tis (abstract nouns from verbs)

*gʷem (‘to step’) + *-tis > gʷémtis ‘walking’

Ablaut alternations to root: *ḱernes ‘horned’ *ḱernos ‘horn’

Stress shift: *bʰóros ‘burden’ *bʰorós ‘carrier’

Reduplication: kʷekʷlos ‘wheel’ (Gmc. ‘circle’)

Compounding: *drḱ-h₂ḱru ‘tear’ (‘eye’ + ‘bitter’)

The king and the god

To rḗḱs éh1est. So n̥putlos éh1est. So rēḱs súhnum éwel(e)t. Só tós(j)o ǵʰeutérm̥

(e)pr̥ḱsḱet: "Súhxnus moi ǵn̥h1jotām!" So ǵʰeutēr tom rḗǵm̥ éweukʷet: "Ihxgeswo

deiwóm Wérunom". So rḗḱs deiwóm Werunom h4úpo-sesore nu deiwóm

(é)ihxgeto. "ḱludʰí moi, phater Werune!" Deiwós Wérunos km̥ta diwós égʷehat.

"Kʷíd welsi?" "Wélmi súxnum." "Tód h1éstu", wéukʷet loukós deiwos Werunos.

Rēǵós pótniha súhnum gegonh1e.

Source: Mallory, J.P.; Douglas Q. Adams (1997). Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture.

Once there was a king. He was childless. The king wanted a son. He asked his

priest: "May a son be born to me!" The priest said to the king: "Pray to the god

Werunos". The king approached the god Werunos to pray now to the god. "Hear

me, father Werunos!" The god Werunos came down from heaven. "What do you

want?" "I want a son." "Let this be so", said the bright god Werunos. The king's

lady bore a son.

Other Refs:

Winfred P. Lehmann (1952) Proto-Indo-European Phonology

http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/books/piep00.html

Robert S.P. Beekes. (1995) Comparative Indo-European linguistics: an

introduction. 491 B41