Talk:Proto-Indo-European language

Desinence?

Isn't a "desinence" always an ending, suffix, or terminator?

Phrygian's classification?

(kinda new to this btw) I knew about the huge language tree chart. Phrygian is not included on it. I wanted to see how it would be classified, but I checked for a while and it just isn't on there. Which is extremely strange, because "fringe" languages (off the top of my head: Yola, Juhuri, Knaanic) that are rarely discussed about are included in the tree.

To be honest, Phrygian is really lacking in all of Wikipedia. It only appears on its own pages and is mentioned in a subsection whenever Greek comes up. I understand that its classification is a little debated, but it should still be added to the page to the full extant others are. Kit Fisto Bro (talk) 02:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

We have a lot about Phrygian all over the place. It's lacking in that monstrous tree, but only there. First of all, it's in the infobox of Indo-European languages. It's also mentioned in this article in the context of the Graeco-Phrygian hypothesis. Check also Paleo-Balkan languages, or even (weirdly enough) Armeno-Phrygian languages. –Austronesier (talk) 11:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Evidentiality

I found this source that could be useful for whether or not there was evidentiality in PIE. [1]https://www.researchgate.net/publication/238680799_Evidentiality_in_Proto-Indo-European_Building_a_CaseI might need to read into it for the conclusion. And maybe more. Kaden Bayne Vanciel (talk) 02:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

The Persian version of this article has a completely different meaning to the English version

I switched to the Persian version of this article to see how it would be different from the English version only to realize some of the wild claims the Persian article was making about P.I.E. Thewikixx (talk) 12:58, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

So? That's none of our business. This page is for improving the article on the English Wikipedia. Remsense诉 13:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Seems legitimate to ask here for bilinguals to look there. —Tamfang (talk) 00:17, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't really think it's the best place, but I do concede I don't really know where the best place would be. Remsense诉 10:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Title

Why is this not Indo-Germanic languages? 79.106.203.121 (talk) 16:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Why would it be? Remsense诉 16:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Why would it not be? 79.106.203.121 (talk) 17:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Your comments suggest a lack of familiarity with the literature on the subject. A glance at the bibliography should have been sufficient. --Pfold (talk) 18:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

At a glance I see no mention in the article that the family has been called Indo-Germanic (for the most distant subfamilies); that name is out of fashion in English, but not wholly forgotten, and I think it is still usual in some other languages. Whether the article ought to mention it, and how, is worth some consideration. —Tamfang (talk) 05:04, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Historical terminology is relevant and can have a mention with due weight, but not here. The main article for all things Indo-European is Indo-European languages; "Indo-Germanic" is mentioned there. –Austronesier (talk) 05:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Good enough for me. —Tamfang (talk) 00:11, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

This article is inconsistent on whether Proto-Indo-European is an ancient language or an Industrial-Age invention by scholars

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

When I'm typing this protest, the article contains the text "Proto-Indo-European (PIE) is the reconstructed common ancestor of the Indo-European language family", and also contains "...; its proposed features have been derived by linguistic reconstruction from documented Indo-European languages." That agrees with my understanding, and what I've heard and read everywhere else.

But this article also contains the text "PIE is hypothesized to have been spoken as a single language from approximately 4500 BCE to 2500 BCE..." and the text "As speakers of Proto-Indo-European became isolated from each other ...".

Well, wait a second. If it's a language invented/reconstructed by scholars, there's no guarantee (and in fact odds are against) that this language is the ACTUAL language that was REALLY spoken by any ancient people. Regardless of what I've read elsewhere, Wikipedia ought to at least take note of the fact that the pieces of text I've quoted can't both be correct. Either "Proto-Indo-European" is the word for the reconstructed language, or it's the word for a language that we KNOW (from whatever historical and archaeological evidence) was spoken by an ancient people millennia ago. It may be true (by an astronomically LUCKY outcome that every "best guess" as to language-divergence IS the actual language-divergence that occurred) that our most LIKELY (or simplest, or most logical) reverse-engineerings of EVERY language-change really do bring us to a language that really was spoken by real ancient people. But even if we HAVE won this absurdly-difficult lottery, there's no way anyone alive today could KNOW, or PROVE, that the INVENTED language "Proto-Indo-European" really IS that language lost so long ago.

So, no, let's not be talking about the people who spoke "Proto-Indo-European" (at least, not any people before the 18th century)! There never WERE any such people. This article absolutely should not flip back and forth between saying that "Proto-Indo-European" is the name of the reverse-engineered language (which dovetails all of today's Indo-European languages into an ENTIRELY HYPOTHETICAL parent-language) and saying that "Proto-Indo-European" is the name of an ancient language actually spoken by real people thousands of years ago. And let me conclude with another expression of dismay as to Wikipedia's standards, once again putting mutually-inconsistent statements into the same article, which as often as not I can read only after clicking away a banner asking me for money.2600:1700:6759:B000:E894:BFCC:705D:880 (talk) 19:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson

This critique would also apply for any "language" as an abstract object of study. If you insist otherwise, then that is a problem you have with historical linguistics as a science. It is not that confusing if one chooses to straightforwardly digest the article and its sources as written. Remsense诉 19:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm with Remsense here; we all know PIE is a construct which has been proposed to explain various extant linguistic phenomena. In that way it's no different from other scientific models we often refer to as concrete realities, say the Big Bang or Pangaea. Those are both theoretical constructs about which we are constantly learning new particulars. So, as PIE is far and away the model supported by most scholars (even with various detail differences), it makes sense to me to refer to it as the article does. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I think everyone except for Randy in Boise is with Remsense here. –Austronesier (talk) 20:35, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.