Indo-European languages explained

See also: List of Indo-European languages.

Indo-European
Region:Before the 16th century, Europe, and South, Central and Southwest Asia; today worldwide.
Familycolor:Indo-European
Family:One of the world's major language families
Protoname:Proto-Indo-European
Child1:Albanian
Child2:Anatolian (extinct)
Child3:Armenian
Child4:Balto-Slavic (Baltic and Slavic)
Child5:Celtic
Child6:Germanic
Child7:Hellenic (Greek)
Child8:Indo-Iranian
Child9:Italic (includes Romance)
Child10:Tocharian (extinct)
Iso2:ine
Iso5:ine

The Indo-European languages are a family (or phylum) of several hundred related languages and dialects,[1] including most major current languages of Europe, the Iranian plateau, and South Asia and also historically predominant in Anatolia. With written attestations appearing since the Bronze Age, in the form of the Anatolian languages and Mycenaean Greek, the Indo-European family is significant to the field of historical linguistics as possessing the longest recorded history after the Afroasiatic family.

Indo-European languages are spoken by almost three billion native speakers,[2] the largest number for any recognised language family. Of the twenty languages with the largest numbers of native speakers according to SIL Ethnologue, twelve are Indo-European: Spanish, English, Hindi, Portuguese, Bengali, Russian, German, Marathi, French, Italian, Punjabi, and Urdu, accounting for over 1.7 billion native speakers.[3] Several disputed proposals link Indo-European to other major language families.

History of Indo-European linguistics

See main article: Indo-European studies. Suggestions of similarities between Indian and European languages began to be made by European visitors to India in the 16th century. In 1583 Thomas Stephens, an English Jesuit missionary in Goa, noted similarities between Indian languages, specifically Konkani, and Greek and Latin. These observations were included in a letter to his brother which was not published until the twentieth century.[4]

The first account by a western European to mention the ancient language Sanskrit came from Filippo Sassetti (born in Florence, Italy in 1540), a merchant who traveled to the Indian subcontinent. Writing in 1585, he noted some word similarities between Sanskrit and Italian (these included devaḥ/dio "God", sarpaḥ/serpe "serpent", sapta/sette "seven", aṣṭa/otto "eight", nava/nove "nine").[4] However, neither Stephens's nor Sassetti's observations led to further scholarly inquiry.[4]

In 1647, Dutch linguist and scholar Marcus Zuerius van Boxhorn noted the similarity among Indo-European languages, and supposed that they derived from a primitive common language which he called "Scythian". He included in his hypothesis Dutch, Albanian, Greek, Latin, Persian, and German, later adding Slavic, Celtic and Baltic languages. However, Van Boxhorn's suggestions did not become widely known and did not stimulate further research.

Gaston Coeurdoux and others had made observations of the same type. Coeurdoux made a thorough comparison of Sanskrit, Latin and Greek conjugations in the late 1760s to suggest a relationship between them. Similarly, Mikhail Lomonosov compared different languages groups of the world including Slavic, Baltic ("Kurlandic"), Iranian ("Medic"), Finnish, Chinese, "Hottentot", and others. He emphatically expressed the antiquity of the linguistic stages accessible to comparative method in the drafts for his Russian Grammar (published 1755).[5]

The hypothesis reappeared in 1786 when Sir William Jones first lectured on the striking similarities between three of the oldest languages known in his time: Latin, Greek, and Sanskrit, to which he tentatively added Gothic, Celtic, and Old Persian,[6] though his classification contained some inaccuracies and omissions.[7]

It was Thomas Young who in 1813[8] first used the term Indo-European, which became the standard scientific term through the work of Franz Bopp, whose systematic comparison of these and other old languages supported the theory. In some nations, the term Indo-Germanic is in use; in Germany as the standard scientific term, while in other languages it is the more common term[9] Bopp's Comparative Grammar, appearing between 1833 and 1852, counts as the starting point of Indo-European studies as an academic discipline.

The classical phase of Indo-European comparative linguistics leads from Franz Bopp's Comparative Grammar (1833) to August Schleicher's 1861 Compendium and up to Karl Brugmann's Grundriss, published in the 1880s. Brugmann's junggrammatische reevaluation of the field and Ferdinand de Saussure's development of the laryngeal theory may be considered the beginning of "modern" Indo-European studies. The generation of Indo-Europeanists active in the last third of the 20th century (such as Calvert Watkins, Jochem Schindler and Helmut Rix) developed a better understanding of morphology and, in the wake of Kuryłowicz's 1956 Apophonie, understanding of the ablaut.

Classification

See also: List of languages by first written accounts. The various subgroups of the Indo-European language family include ten major branches, given in the chronological order of their earliest surviving written attestations:

  1. Anatolian, the earliest attested branch. Isolated terms in Old Assyrian sources from the 19th century BC, Hittite texts from about the 16th century BC; extinct by Late Antiquity.
  2. Hellenic, fragmentary records in Mycenaean Greek from the late 15th to the early 14th century BC; Homeric texts date to the 8th century BC. (See Proto-Greek, History of the Greek.)
  3. Indo-Iranian, descended from Proto-Indo-Iranian (dated to the late 3rd millennium BC).
  4. Italic, including Latin and its descendants (the Romance), attested from the 7th century BC.
  5. Celtic, descended from Proto-Celtic. Tartessian dated from 8th century BC,[10] [11] Gaulish inscriptions date as early as the 6th century BC; Celtiberian from the 2nd century BC; Old Irish manuscript tradition from about the 8th century AD, and there are inscriptions in Old Welsh from the same period.
  6. Germanic (from Proto-Germanic), earliest testimonies in runic inscriptions from around the 2nd century AD, earliest coherent texts in Gothic, 4th century AD. Old English manuscript tradition from about the 8th century AD.
  7. Armenian, alphabet writings known from the beginning of the 5th century AD.
  8. Tocharian, extant in two dialects (Turfanian and Kuchean), attested from roughly the 6th to the 9th century AD. Marginalized by the Old Turkic Uyghur Khaganate and probably extinct by the 10th century.
  9. Balto-Slavic, believed by most Indo-Europeanists[12] to form a phylogenetic unit, while a minority ascribes similarities to prolonged language contact.
  10. Albanian, attested from the 14th century AD; Proto-Albanian likely emerged from Paleo-Balkan predecessors.[13] [14]

In addition to the classical ten branches listed above, several extinct and little-known languages have existed:

Grouping

See also: Language families.

Membership of these languages in the Indo-European language family is determined by genetic relationships, meaning that all members are presumed to be descendants of a common ancestor, Proto-Indo-European. Membership in the various branches, groups and subgroups or Indo-European is also genetic, but here the defining factors are shared innovations among various languages, suggesting a common ancestor that split off from other Indo-European groups. For example, what makes the Germanic languages a branch of Indo-European is that much of their structure and phonology can so be stated in rules that apply to all of them. Many of their common features are presumed to be innovations that took place in Proto-Germanic, the source of all the Germanic languages.

Tree versus wave model

See also: Language change. To the evolutionary history of a language family, a genetic "tree model" is considered appropriate especially if communities do not remain in effective contact as their languages diverge. Exempted from this concept are shared innovations acquired by borrowing (or other means of convergence), that cannot be considered genetic. In this case the so-called "wave model" applies, featuring borrowings and no clear underlying genetic tree. It has been asserted, for example, that many of the more striking features shared by Italic languages (Latin, Oscan, Umbrian, etc.) might well be areal features. More certainly, very similar-looking alterations in the systems of long vowels in the West Germanic languages greatly postdate any possible notion of a proto-language innovation (and cannot readily be regarded as "areal", either, since English and continental West Germanic were not a linguistic area). In a similar vein, there are many similar innovations in Germanic and Balto-Slavic that are far more likely to be areal features than traceable to a common proto-language, such as the uniform development of a high vowel (*u in the case of Germanic, *i/u in the case of Baltic and Slavic) before the PIE syllabic resonants *ṛ,* ḷ, *ṃ, *ṇ, unique to these two groups among IE languages, which is in agreement with the wave model. The Balkan sprachbund even features areal convergence among members of very different branches.

Using an extension to the Ringe-Warnow model of language evolution, early IE was confirmed to have featured limited contact between distinct lineages, while only the Germanic subfamily exhibited a less treelike behaviour as it acquired some characteristics from neighbours early in its evolution rather than from its direct ancestors. The internal diversification of especially West Germanic is cited to have been radically non-treelike.

Proposed subgroupings

Specialists have postulated the existence of such subfamilies (subgroups) as Italo-Celtic, Graeco-Armenian, Graeco-Aryan, and Germanic with Balto-Slavic. The vogue for such subgroups waxes and wanes; Italo-Celtic for example used to be a standard subgroup of Indo-European, but it is now little honored, in part because much of the evidence on which it was based has turned out to have been misinterpreted.[15]

Subgroupings of the Indo-European languages are commonly held to reflect genetic relationships and linguistic change. The generic differentiation of Proto-Indo-European into dialects and languages happened hand in hand with language contact and the spread of innovations over different territories.

Rather than being entirely genetic, the grouping of satem languages is commonly inferred as an innovative change that occurred just once, and subsequently spread over a large cohesive territory or PIE continuum that affected all but the peripheral areas.[16] Kortlandt proposes the ancestors of Balts and Slavs took part in satemization and were then drawn into the western Indo-European sphere.[17]

Shared features of Phrygian and Greek[18] and of Thracian and Armenian[19] group together with the Indo-Iranian family of Indo-European languages.[20] Some fundamental shared features, like the aorist (a verb form denoting action without reference to duration or completion) having the perfect active particle -s fixed to the stem, link this group closer to Anatolian languages[21] and Tocharian. Shared features with Balto-Slavic languages, on the other hand (especially present and preterit formations), might be due to later contacts.[22]

The Indo-Hittite hypothesis proposes the Indo-European language family to consist of two main branches: one represented by the Anatolian languages and another branch encompassing all other Indo-European languages. Features that separate Anatolian from all other branches of Indo-European (such as the gender or the verb system) have been interpreted alternately as archaic debris or as innovations due to prolonged isolation. Points proffered in favour of the Indo-Hittite hypothesis are the (non-universal) Indo-European agricultural terminology in Anatolia[23] and the preservation of laryngeals.[24] However, in general this hypothesis is considered to attribute too much weight to the Anatolian evidence. According to another view the Anatolian subgroup left the Indo-European parent language comparatively late, approximately at the same time as Indo-Iranian and later than the Greek or Armenian divisions. A third view, especially prevalent in the so-called French school of Indo-European studies, holds that extant similarities in non-satem languages in general - including Anatolian - might be due to their peripheral location in the Indo-European language area and early separation, rather than indicating a special ancestral relationship.[25] Hans J. Holm, based on lexical calculations, arrives at a picture roughly replicating the general scholarly opinion and refuting the Indo-Hittite hypothesis.[26]

Satem and centum languages

See main article: Centum-Satem isogloss. The division of the Indo-European languages into a Satem vs. a Centum group was devised by von Bradke in the late 19th century.

Suggested macrofamilies

See also: Origin of language.

Some linguists propose that Indo-European languages form part of a hypothetical Nostratic macrofamily, and attempt to relate Indo-European to other language families, such as South Caucasian, Uralic (the Indo-Uralic proposal), Dravidian, and Afroasiatic. This theory, like the similar Eurasiatic theory of Joseph Greenberg, and the Proto-Pontic postulation of John Colarusso, remains highly controversial, however, and is not accepted by most linguists in the field. Objections to such groupings are not based on any theoretical claim about the likely historical existence or non-existence of such macrofamilies; it is entirely reasonable to suppose that they might have existed. The serious difficulty lies in identifying the details of actual relationships between language families; it is very hard to find concrete evidence that transcends chance resemblance, or is not equally likely explained as being due to borrowing (including Wanderwörter, which can travel very long distances). Since the signal-to-noise ratio in historical linguistics declines steadily over time, at great enough time-depths it becomes open to reasonable doubt that it can even be possible to distinguish between signal and noise.

Evolution

Proto-Indo-European

See main article: Proto-Indo-European language.

The Proto-Indo-European language (PIE) is the common ancestor of the Indo-European languages, spoken by the Proto-Indo-Europeans. From the 1960s, knowledge of Anatolian became certain enough to establish its relationship to PIE. Using the method of internal reconstruction an earlier stage, called Pre-Proto-Indo-European, has been proposed.

PIE was an inflected language, in which the grammatical relationships between words were signaled through inflectional morphemes (usually endings). The roots of PIE are basic morphemes carrying a lexical meaning. By addition of suffixes, they form stems, and by addition of desinences (usually endings), these form grammatically inflected words (nouns or verbs). The hypothetical Indo-European verb system is complex and, like the noun, exhibits a system of ablaut.

Diversification

The diversification of the parent language into the attested branches of daughter languages is historically unattested. The timeline of the evolution of the various daughter languages, on the other hand, is mostly undisputed, quite regardless of the question of Indo-European origins.

Sound changes

See main article: Indo-European sound laws. As the Proto-Indo-European (PIE) language broke up, its sound system diverged as well, changing according to various sound laws evidenced in the daughter languages.

PIE is normally reconstructed with a complex system of 15 stop consonants, including an unusual three-way phonation distinction between voiceless, voiced and "voiced aspirated" (i.e. breathy voiced) stops, and a three-way distinction among velar consonants between "palatal" ḱ ǵ ǵh, "plain velar" k g gh and labiovelar kʷ gʷ gʷh (although the correctness of the terms palatal and plain velar is disputed; see Proto-Indo-European phonology). All daughter languages have reduced the number of distinctions among these sounds, often in divergent ways.

None of the daughter-language families (except possibly Anatolian, particularly Luvian) reflect the plain velar stops differently from the other two series, and there is even a certain amount of dispute whether this series existed at all in PIE. The major distinction between centum and satem languages corresponds to the outcome of the PIE plain velars:

The three-way PIE distinction between voiceless, voiced and voiced aspirated stops is considered extremely unusual from the perspective of linguistic typology — particularly in the existence of voiced aspirated stops without a corresponding series of voiceless aspirated stops. None of the various daughter-language families continue it unchanged, with numerous "solutions" to the apparently unstable PIE situation:

Among the other notable changes affecting consonants are:

The following table shows the basic outcomes of PIE consonants in some of the most important daughter languages for the purposes of reconstruction. For a fuller table, see Indo-European sound laws.

PIE !! rowspan=2
Skr.!rowspan=2O.C.S.!rowspan=2Lith.!rowspan=2Greek!rowspan=2Latin!rowspan=2Old Irish!rowspan=2Gothic!rowspan=2English!colspan=6Examples
PIEEng.Skr.Gk.Lat.Lith. etc.
H

T

`--

--
  • pṓds ~ *ped-
footpád-poús (podós)pēs (pedis)pãdas
H

--
;
`-- ;
T-

`--;
T-
  • tréyes
threetráyastreĩstrēstrỹs
;
--

`--

--;
`--
  • ḱm̥tóm
hund(red)śatámhe-katóncentumšimtas
E ;
H

E ;
E'
  • kreuh₂
    "raw meat"
OE hrēaw
> raw
kravíṣ-kréascruorkraûjas
rowspan=2rowspan=2

E;
(u)
rowspan=2 ;
(O)
rowspan=2 ;
`--
rowspan=2

`--
  • kʷid, kʷod
whatkímquid, quodkàs
  • kʷekʷlom
wheelcakrá-kúkloskãklas
H
;
--
H
;
--
  • déḱm̥(t)
ten,
Goth. taíhun
dáśadékadecemdẽšimt
;
H
;
--

E'
  • ǵénu, *ǵnéu-
OE cnēo
> knee
jā́nugónugenu

E ;
H;
H,E

E ;
E'
  • yugóm
yokeyugámzugóniugumjùngas

e;
(u)
;
n-
;
--
  • gʷīw-
quick
"alive"
jīvá-bíos,
bíotos
vīvusgývas

..Ch

..Ch
-;
;
--;
-

--(rl)
  • bʰerō
bear "carry"bhar-phérōferōOCS berǫ

..Ch

..Ch
-;
;
(r),l,u-
;
--
;
--;
-
  • dʰwer-, dʰur-
doordhvā́raḥthurā́forēsdùrys
;
..Ch

..Ch

R
;
--

-- ;
-

--(rl)
  • ǵhans-
goose,
OHG gans
haṁsáḥkhḗn(h)ānseržąsìs

E ;
..Ch;
E..Ch

E ;
E'
rowspan=2rowspan=2

E;
(u);
..Ch;
E..Ch;
(u)..Ch
rowspan=2-;
/
-- ;
n
rowspan=2

-;
--;
n
rowspan=2

-;
--
  • sneigʷh-
snowsneha-níphanivissniẽgas
  • gʷʰerm-
??warmgharmáḥthermósformusLatv. gar̂me
-;
-;
(T);
--;
(R)

--
;
--

`--

`--
  • septḿ̥
sevensaptáheptáseptemseptynì
ruki- ruki- ruki-
;
--
  • mūs
mousemū́ṣ-mũsmūsOCS myšĭ
-- ----

-
  • nokʷt-
nightnákt-núkt-noct-naktis
(dial. )
  • leuk-
lightrócateleukóslūxlaũkas
  • h₁reudh-
redrudhirá-eruthrósruberraũdas
/
;
--
;
--
  • yugóm
yokeyugámzugóniugumjùngas

--
PIESkr.O.C.S.Lith.GreekLatinOld IrishGothicEnglish

Notes:

Comparison of conjugations

The following table presents a comparison of conjugations of the thematic present indicative of the verbal root * of the English verb to bear and its reflexes in various early attested IE languages and their modern descendants or relatives, showing that all languages had in the early stage an inflectional verb system.

Major SubgroupHellenicIndo-IranianItalicCelticArmenianGermanicBalto-SlavicAlbanian
Indo-AryanIranianBalticSlavic
Ancient RepresentativeAncient GreekVedic SanskritAvestanLatinOld IrishClassical Arm.GothicOld PrussianOld Church Sl.Old Albanian
I (1st. Sg.)phérōbhárāmibarāferōbiru; berimberembaíra /bɛra/berǫ
You (2nd. Sg.)phéreisbhárasibarahifersbiri; berirberesbaírisbereši
He/She/It (3rd. Sg.)phéreibháratibaraitifertberidberēbaíriþberetъ
We (1st. Du.) - bhárāvasbarāvahi - - - baírosberevě
You (2nd. Du.)phéretonbhárathas - - - - baíratsbereta
They (3rd. Du.)phéretonbháratasbaratō - - - - berete
We (1st. Pl.)phéromenbhárāmasbarāmahiferimusbermaiberemk`baíramberemъ
You (2nd. Pl.)phéretebhárathabaraϑafertisbeirtheberēk`baíriþberete
They (3rd. Pl.)phérousibhárantibarəṇtiferuntberaitberenbaírandberǫtъ
Modern RepresentativeModern GreekHindi-UrduPersianFrenchIrishArmenian (Eastern; Western)GermanLithuanianCzechAlbanian
I (1st. Sg.)férno(maiṃ) bharūṃ(mi)baram(je) beirimberum em; g'perem(ich) beru(unë) mbart
You (2nd. Sg.)férnis(tū) bhare(mi)bari(tu) beirirberum es; g'peres(du) bereš(ti) mbart
He/She/It (3rd. Sg.)férni(vah) bhare(mi)barad(il) beireann; %beiridhberum ē; g'perē(sie) bere(ai/ajo) mbart
We (1st. Pl.)férnoume(ham) bhareṃ(mi)barim(nous) beirimid; beireamberum enk`; g'perenk`(wir) berem(e)(ne) mbartim
You (2nd. Pl.)férnete(tum) bharo(mi)barid(vous) beireann sibh; %beirthaoiberum ek`; g'perek`(ihr) berete(ju) mbartni
They (3rd. Pl.)férnoun(ve) bhareṃ(mi)barand(ils) beiridberum en; g'peren(sie) berou(ata/ato) mbartin

While similarities are still visible between the modern descendants and relatives of these ancient languages, the differences have increased over time. Some IE languages have moved from synthetic verb systems to largely periphrastic systems. The pronouns of periphrastic forms are in brackets when they appear. Some of these verbs have undergone a change in meaning as well.

Comparison of cognates

See main article: Indo-European vocabulary.

See also

References

Further reading

. Beekes, Robert S. P.. Robert S. P. Beekes. Comparative Indo-European Linguistics. Amsterdam. John Benjamins. 1995.

. Byomkes Chakrabarti. 1994. A comparative study of Santali and Bengali. Calcutta. K.P. Bagchi & Co.. 8170741289.

. J.P. Mallory. 1989. In Search of the Indo-Europeans. London. Thames and Hudson. 0-500-27616-1.

. Colin Renfrew. 1987. Archaeology & Language. The Puzzle of the Indo-European Origins. London. Jonathan Cape. 0-224-02495-7.

External links

Databases

Lexica


Notes and References

  1. It includes 449 languages and dialects, according to the 2005 Ethnologue estimate, about half (219) belonging to the Indo-Aryan subbranch.
  2. Web site: Ethnologue list of language families. Ethnologue.com. 2010-08-07.
  3. Web site: Ethnologue list of languages by number of speakers. Ethnologue.com. 2010-08-07.
  4. Book: Auroux, Sylvain. History of the Language Sciences. 1156. 3110167352. Walter de Gruyter. Berlin, New York. 2000.
  5. http://feb-web.ru/feb/lomonos/texts/lo0/lo7/lo7-5952.htm M. V. Lomonosov. In: Complete Edition, Moscow, 1952, vol. 7, pp 652–659
  6. Web site: cited on page 14-15.. PDF. 2010-08-07.
  7. Roger Blench Archaeology and Language: methods and issues. In: A Companion To Archaeology. J. Bintliff ed. 52-74. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 2004. (He erroneously included Egyptian, Japanese, and Chinese in the Indo-European languages, while omitting Hindi.)
  8. In London Quarterly Review X/2 1813.; cf. Szemerényi 1999:12, footnote 6
  9. In German the scientific term is indogermanisch translating into 'Indo-Germanic' which indicates the east-west extension. That term was first recorded in use in French original as indo-germanique, in 1810 by Conrad Malte-Brun, a French geographer of Danish descent. In other languages, for instance, in Dutch the term Indo-Germaans is the term used by the general population.
  10. Book: Koch, John T. Celtic from the West Chapter 9: Paradigm Shift? Interpreting Tartessian as Celtic. 2010. Oxbow Books, Oxford, UK. 978-1-84217-410-4. 187–295.
  11. Book: Koch, John T. Tartessian 2: The Inscription of Mesas do Castelinho ro and the Verbal Complex. Preliminaries to Historical Phonology. 2011. Oxbow Books, Oxford, UK. 978-1-907029-07-3. 1–198.
  12. such as Schleicher 1861, Szemerényi 1957, Collinge 1985, and Beekes 1995
  13. Of the Albanian Language. William Martin Leake, London, 1814.
  14. Web site: The Thracian language. The Linguist List. 2008-01-27. An ancient language of Southern Balkans, belonging to the Satem group of Indo-European. This language is the most likely ancestor of modern Albanian (which is also a Satem language), though the evidence is scanty. 1st Millennium BC – 500 AD..
  15. Mallory J.P., D. Q. Adams (Hrsg.): Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture, Fitzroy Dearborn, London, 1997
  16. Britannica 15th edition, vol.22, 1981, p.588, 594
  17. Web site: Frederik Kortlandt-The spread of the Indo-Europeans, 1989. PDF. 2010-08-07.
  18. Lubotsky - The Old Phrygian Areyastis-inscription, Kadmos 27, 9-26, 1988
  19. Kortlandt - The Thraco-Armenian consonant shift, Linguistique Balkanique 31, 71-74, 1988
  20. Book: Renfrew, Colin. Colin Renfrew

    . Colin Renfrew. 1987. Archaeology & Language. The Puzzle of the Indo-European Origins. London. Jonathan Cape. 0-224-02495-7.

  21. Encyclopaedia Britannica, vol.22, Helen Hemingway Benton Publisher, Chicago, (15th ed.) 1981, p.593
  22. George S. Lane, Douglas Q. Adams, Britannica 15th edition 22:667, "The Tocharian problem"
  23. The supposed autochthony of Hittites, the Indo-Hittite hypothesis and migration of agricultural "Indo-European" societies became intrinsically linked together by C. Renfrew. (Renfrew, C 2001a The Anatolian origins of Proto-Indo-European and the autochthony of the Hittites. In R. Drews ed., Greater Anatolia and the Indo-Hittite language. family: 36-63. Washington, DC: Institute for the Study of Man).
  24. Britannica 15th edition, 22 p. 586 "Indo-European languages, The parent language, Laryngeal theory" - W.C.; p. 589, 593 "Anatolian languages" - Philo H.J. Houwink ten Cate, H. Craig Melchert and Theo P.J. van den Hout
  25. Britannica 15th edition, 22 p. 594, "Indo-Hittite hypothesis"
  26. Book: Holm, Hans J.. Data Analysis, Machine Learning, and Applications. Proc. of the 31st Annual Conference of the German Classification Society (GfKl), University of Freiburg, March 7–9, 2007. The Distribution of Data in Word Lists and its Impact on the Subgrouping of Languages. Christine. Preisach. Hans. Burkhardt. Lars. Schmidt-Thieme. =Reinhold. Decker. Springer-Verlag. Heidelberg-Berlin. 2008. Studies in Classification, Data Analysis, and Knowledge Organization. 9783540782391. The result is a partly new chain of separation for the main Indo-European branches, which fits well to the grammatical facts, as well as to the geographical distribution of these branches. In particular it clearly demonstrates that the Anatolian languages did not part as first ones and thereby refutes the Indo-Hittite hypothesis..
  27. Web site: Indo-European Languages: Balto-Slavic Family. Utexas.edu. 2008-11-10. 2010-08-07.