Proto-Indo-European language

Proto-Indo-European (PIE) is the reconstructed common ancestor of the Indo-European language family. No direct record of Proto-Indo-European exists; its proposed features have been derived by linguistic reconstruction from documented Indo-European languages.

Quotes

• Many points of controversy surround the reconstruction of PIE, and indeed surround any reconstruction effort. Some are methodological questions (for example, how do we distinguish archaisms from innovations?); some are philosophical (for example, what kinds of evidence are admissible in reconstruction?); some are simply differences of opinion based on the preconceptions and orientation of the investigator (for example, which is more archaic, Hittite or Sanskrit?).
  • Ph. Baldi (Baldi 1983, p.14-15, An Introduction to the Indo-European languages. quoted from Kazanas, N. (2015). Vedic and IndoEuropean studies. Aditya Prakashan.

• Pulgram (1959) further warns that "we must not make the mistake of confusing our methods, and the results flowing from them, with the facts; we must not delude ourselves into believing that our retrogressive method of reconstruction matches, step by step, the real progression of linguistic history." He continues: "We now find ourselves in possession of two entirely different items, both of which we call Proto-Indo-European: one, a set of reconstructed formulae not representative of any reality; the other, an undiscovered (possibly undiscoverable) language of whose reality we may be certain." The difference between the two should always be kept in mind: "Arguing about 'Proto-Indo-European' can be meaningful and fruitful . . . if we always explain whether we are talking about the one or the other— which, as we well know, we do not do" (424). In short, we know there was a Proto- Indo-European language; we do not know to what extent our reconstructions approximate it.
  • Pulgram (1959) quoted in Bryant, E. F. (2001). The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture : the Indo-Aryan migration debate. Oxford University Press. ch 4

• O. Szemerényi admits that reconstructions are used to facilitate comparisons, using one word instead of many IE variants, and cites Hermann’s statement that “complete forms (e.g. *deiwos [=S deva-s]) cannot be reconstructed at all, only single sounds, and even these are meant as approximation only”. Twenty years earlier Burrow had said much the same: “in the case of Indo-European it is certain that there was no such unitary language which can be reached by means of comparison… the Indo-European that we can reach by this means was already deeply split up into a series of varying dialects”. More recently, exhibiting scepticism like mine, X. Tremblay writes (of various IE branches but mainly Iranian): “la grammaire comparée est en réalité radicalement incapable de discriminer entre parenté divergente … et parenté convergente”.
  • (Szemerényi 1996: 33) Szemerényi O. 1996 Introduction to Indo-European Linguistics (transl from German 1990, with additional notes and references) Oxford, OUP.
  • (1973:11) Burrow T. 1973 The Sanskrit Language (1955 rev ed) London, Faber.
  • (2005: 63) Tremblay X. 2005 ‘Grammaire comparé et grammaire historique’ in Fussman G., Kellens J., et al.
  • Quoted from Kazanas, N. (2009). Indo-Aryan origins and other Vedic issues. Chapter 9

• As linguist Ernst Pulgram once stated, “No reputable linguist pretends that Proto-Indo-European reconstructions represent a reality, and the unpronounceability of the asterisked formulae is not a legitimate argument against reconstruction”
  • in Jean-Paul Demoule - The Indo-Europeans_ Archaeology, Language, Race, and the Search for the Origins of the West