List of Indo-European languages explained

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.

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. Or there may be cases where between three dialects, A, B, and C, A and B are mutually intelligible, B and C are mutually intelligible, but A and C are not. In such circumstances grouping the three dielects becomes impossible. 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).

Proto-Indo-European

Dating the split-offs of the main branches

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

Protolanguages that developed into the Indo-European languages

The following is a list of protolanguages of known Indo-European subfamilies and deeper branches.

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)

Tocharian languages (Agni-Kuči languages) (all extinct)

Albanian language

See also: Albanoid.

Italic languages

Celtic languages

Hellenic languages

Armenian language

Germanic languages

in Hohenlohe

Balto-Slavic languages

Baltic languages

Slavic languages

Indo-Iranian languages

Iranian languages

Nuristani languages (Kamozian)

Transitional Iranian-Indo-Aryan[70] [71] (older name: Kafiri) (according to some scholars[72] [73] 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 Islam)

Indo-Aryan languages

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 (?)

Hypothetical Indo-European languages (all extinct)

See also

External links

Notes and References

  1. Web site: Ethnologue report for Indo-European. Ethnologue.com. 2012-12-07. 2012-01-06. https://web.archive.org/web/20120106052358/http://www.ethnologue.com/show_family.asp?subid=2-16. live.
  2. 10.1038/nature14507. 26062507. Population genomics of Bronze Age Eurasia. Nature. 522. 7555. 167–172. 2015. 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. Jarysz. Radosław. 2015Natur.522..167A. 4399103. 29. 2018-11-04. 2019-03-29. https://web.archive.org/web/20190329150521/http://orbit.dtu.dk/en/publications/population-genomics-of-bronze-age-eurasia(11286d58-42ae-4397-bc7a-3bb8b71c6c52).html. live.
  3. KAPOVIĆ, Mate. (ed.) (2017). The Indo-European Languages.
  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:
  12. [Calvert Watkins|Watkins, Calvert]
  13. Working hypothesis 6: Non-IE influence in the West and the separation of Celtic from ItaloCeltic1. 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. .
  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. . 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. .
  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. Web site: New Indo-European Language Discovered . 2023-09-26 . 2023-09-26 . https://web.archive.org/web/20230926200114/https://www.uni-wuerzburg.de/en/news-and-events/news/detail/news/new-indo-european-language-discovered/ . live .
  28. Web site: Kalasmaic, a New IE Language . 2023-09-26 . 2023-09-26 . https://web.archive.org/web/20230926115905/https://languagehat.com/kalasmaic-a-new-ie-language/ . live .
  29. Web site: A new Indo-European Language discovered in the Hittite capital Hattusa . 2023-09-26 . 2023-09-26 . https://web.archive.org/web/20230926160006/https://arkeonews.net/a-new-indo-european-language-discovered-in-the-hittite-capital-hattusa/ . live .
  30. Web site: New Indo-European Language Discovered in Ancient City of Hattusa . 2023-09-26 . 2023-09-26 . https://web.archive.org/web/20230926035253/https://greekreporter.com/2023/09/23/new-indo-european-language-ancient-hatussa/ . live .
  31. Krause, Todd B.; Slocum, Jonathan. "Tocharian Online: Series Introduction". University of Texas at Austin. Retrieved 17 April 2020.
  32. Beckwith, Christopher I. (2009), Empires of the Silk Road: A History of Central Asia from the Bronze Age to the Present, Princeton University Press, .
  33. Voynikov, Zhivko. (?). Some ancient Chinese names in East Turkestan and Central Asia and the Tocharian question.
  34. Web site: Niya Tocharian: language contact and prehistory on the Silk Road . cordis.europa.eu . 2023-01-05 . 2023-01-27 . https://web.archive.org/web/20230127191019/https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/626656 . live .
  35. Pellegrini G., Carta dei dialetti d'Italia, CNR – Pacini ed., Pisa, 1977
  36. Vignuzzi 1997: 312, 317; Loporcaro & Panciani 2016: 229, 233
  37. Menéndez Pidal, Ramón. (2005). Historia de la Lengua Española (2 Vols.). Madrid: Fundación Ramón Menendez Pidal.
  38. Wright, Roger. (1982). Late Latin and Early Romance in Spain and Carolingian France. Liverpool: University of Liverpool (Francis Cairns, Robin Seager).
  39. 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_
  40. DIAS, Felisberto Luís Ferreira. (1998). "Origens do Português Micaelense. Abordagem diacrónica do sistema vocálico" in A Voz Popular. Ponta Delgada: Universidade dos Açores
  41. BARCELOS, João Maria Soares de. (2008) Dicionário de falares dos Açores, vocabulário regional de todas as ilhas.
  42. MIKOŁAJCZAK, Sylwia. (2014). "Características fonéticas do Português da Ilha Terceira" in Studia Iberystyczne.
  43. Web site: Ancient Macedonian. https://archive.today/20131122022719/http://multitree.org/codes/xmk. dead. November 22, 2013. MultiTree: A Digital Library of Language Relationships. 28 March 2016.
  44. Web site: Gothic language | Origins, History & Vocabulary | Britannica. www.britannica.com. 25 September 2023. 18 August 2023. 21 December 2018. https://web.archive.org/web/20181221004425/https://www.britannica.com/topic/Gothic-language. live.
  45. Web site: East Germanic languages | History, Characteristics & Dialects | Britannica. www.britannica.com. 2023-08-18. 2023-08-18. https://web.archive.org/web/20230818123044/https://www.britannica.com/topic/East-Germanic-languages. live.
  46. 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
  47. 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
  48. C. A. M. Noble: Modern German Dialects. Peter Lang, New York / Berne / Frankfort on the Main, p. 131
  49. 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)
  50. Oxford English Dictionary, "Holland, n. 1," etymology.
  51. Dyers, Charlyn (2016). "The Conceptual Evolution in Linguistics: implications for the study of Kaaps". Multilingual Margins. 3 (2): 61–72 – via Research Gate.
  52. Web site: Oostelike Afrikaans (Oosgrensafrikaans). May 10, 2018. August 11, 2023. August 11, 2023. https://web.archive.org/web/20230811125250/https://afrikaans.com/2018/05/10/oostelike-afrikaans-oosgrensafrikaans/. live.
  53. Hamans, Camiel (9 October 2021). https://ciplnet.com/newsletter/documents/kaaps-a-language-in-its-own-right/ . ciplnet.com. Retrieved 28 September 2022.
  54. Coetzee, Olivia M. (2 November 2021). https://wordswithoutborders.org/read/article/2021-11/november-2021-kaaps-this-language-called-kaaps-an-introduction-olivia-m-coe/ . Words Without Borders. Retrieved 28 September 2022.
  55. Hendricks, Frank (7 November 2018). "The nature and context of Kaaps: a contemporary, past and future perspective".https://multimargins.ac.za/index.php/mm/article/view/38 Multilingual Margins: A Journal of Multilingualism from the Periphery. 3 (2): 6–39. doi:10.14426/mm.v3i2.38. ISSN 2221-4216. S2CID 197552885.
  56. "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
  57. Vakhtin, Nikolai; Golovko, Eugeniy; Schweitzer, Peter (2004).
  58. A Partial Decipherment of the Unknown Kushan Script . Transactions of the Philological Society . January 2023 . 121 . 2 . 293 . Bonmann . Svenja . Halfmann . Jakob . Korobzow . Natalie . Bobomulloev . Bobomullo . 10.1111/1467-968X.12269 . 259851498 . free .
  59. Web site: Research group deciphers enigmatic ancient script . 13 July 2023 . 26 September 2023 . 26 September 2023 . https://web.archive.org/web/20230926160007/https://portal.uni-koeln.de/en/universitaet/aktuell/press-releases/single-news/research-group-deciphers-enigmatic-ancient-script . live .
  60. Web site: The so-called Unknown Kushan Script partially deciphered, language named Eteo-Tocharian . 13 July 2023 . 26 September 2023 . 26 September 2023 . https://web.archive.org/web/20230926161508/https://www.classicult.it/en/the-so-called-unknown-kushan-script-partially-deciphered-language-named-eteo-tocharian/ . live .
  61. Web site: "Unknown Kushan Script" Partially Deciphered - Archaeology Magazine . 2023-09-26 . 2023-09-26 . https://web.archive.org/web/20230926160005/https://www.archaeology.org/news/11600-230719-unknown-kushan-script . live .
  62. Web site: Welcome to Encyclopaedia Iranica . 2023-10-05 . 2020-11-12 . https://web.archive.org/web/20201112021945/https://iranicaonline.org/articles/chorasmia-iii . live .
  63. "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
  64. "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
  65. 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).
  66. 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.
  67. 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".
  68. Waghmar, Burzine K. (2001) 'Bactrian History and Language: An Overview.' Journal of the K. R. Cama Oriental Institute, 64. pp. 45.
  69. 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."
  70. "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).
  71. Web site: Richard Strand's Nuristân Site: Peoples and Languages of Nuristân. 2021-04-23. nuristan.info. 2021-08-06. https://web.archive.org/web/20210806010059/https://nuristan.info/Nuristani/nuristanis.html. live.
  72. See also: Ancient Kamboja, People & the Country, 1981, p 278, These Kamboj People, 1979, pp 119–20, K. S. Dardi etc.
  73. 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.
  74. The Dialectical Position of the Niya Prakrit. 608051. Burrow. T.. Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies, University of London. 1936. 8. 2/3. 419–435. 10.1017/S0041977X00141060. 170991822. 2021-04-25. 2023-07-19. https://web.archive.org/web/20230719144520/https://www.jstor.org/stable/608051. live.
  75. Telegin, D. 2005. The Yamnaya culture and the Indo-European Homeland Problem. Journal of Indo-European Studies. 33 (3 & 4): 339–358
  76. Saag . Lehti . Vasilyev . Sergey V. . Varul . Liivi . Kosorukova . Natalia V. . 2021 . Genetic ancestry changes in Stone to Bronze Age transition in the East European plain . Science Advances . 7 . 4 . 10.1126/sciadv.abd6535 . 33523926 . 7817100 . free . 8. 2021SciA....7.6535S . "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."
  77. Nordqvist & Heyd 2020, p. 82.
  78. Mallory & Adams 1997, pp. 541–542.
  79. Kuzmina 2007, p. 452.
  80. 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.
  81. Mallory & Mair 2008, p. 261.
  82. Anthony 2007, pp. 408–411.
  83. 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 licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "List of Indo-European languages".

Except where otherwise indicated, Everything.Explained.Today is © Copyright 2009-2024, A B Cryer, All Rights Reserved. Cookie policy.