Talk:Proto-Indo-European language

Surplus

 * 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.


 * 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


 * [W]e 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. ... 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. ... 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.
 * Ernst Pulgram (1959), as quoted by E. F. Bryant, The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture: The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate (Oxford University Press, 2001), Ch. 4