Indo-European

Assembled from 32 blocks · 3 evidence · 30 related

1. Story
2. The family that stretches from Ireland to Bengal and now, through colonisation, across the Americas and Oceania — the first to be demonstrated, the most intensively reconstructed, and the yardstick against which every other family's evidence is judged. Its principal branches include Indo-Iranian, Greek, Italic, Celtic, Germanic, Balto-Slavic, Armenian, Albanian, and two extinct branches that transformed the field when they were read: Anatolian, of which Hittite is the best attested, and Tocharian, recorded in Buddhist manuscripts from the Tarim Basin. The family is not distinguished by size — Niger-Congo and Austronesian contain more languages — but by depth of documentation. It has continuous written attestation over three and a half thousand years, which allows reconstructions to be checked against later-discovered texts rather than merely asserted, and it is that checkability, more than any property of the languages, that made Indo-European the laboratory in which the comparative method was built. Its homeland and dispersal date remain the most actively argued questions in the field.
3. Knowledge
4. Indo-European
5. Uralic
6. Proto-Indo-European
7. Connections
8. Proto-Indo-European
9. Uralic
10. Trans-New Guinea
11. Dravidian
12. Hittite
13. Sanskrit
14. Jones states the Indo-European hypothesis in Calcutta
15. Hrozný identifies Hittite as an Indo-European language
16. Proto-Indo-European is spoken
17. Phylogeography puts the Indo-European homeland in Anatolia
18. Indo-European
19. The comparative method
20. Anatolia
21. The Pontic–Caspian steppe
22. Saussure posits consonants no language attests
23. Kuryłowicz matches Hittite h to Saussure's coefficients
24. Proto-Indo-European is spoken
25. A Bayesian phylogeny dates Indo-European to the Anatolian Neolithic
26. Ancient DNA finds a mass movement from the steppe into Europe
27. A hybrid model is proposed for the Indo-European origin
28. Indo-European
29. Evidence
30. Supports the statement that Jones argued in 1786 for a common lost source of Sanskrit, Greek and Latin on the evidence of verb roots and grammatical forms. V55 verification basis: this session had no access to any source — WebFetch was egress-blocked for every host attempted and the WebSearch budget was exhausted before authoring — so the cited work was not retrieved, and no page, volume or figure quoted from it was re-checked. The discourse is paraphrased, never quoted verbatim, and the delivery date of 2 February 1786 is taken from the standard accounts rather than from the publication itself.
31. Supports the general account in this pack of the comparative method, the regularity principle, contact and borrowing, glottochronology and its critics, and the definition of a language isolate. V55 verification basis: this session had no access to any source — WebFetch was egress-blocked for every host attempted and the WebSearch budget was exhausted before authoring — so the cited work was not retrieved, and no page, volume or figure quoted from it was re-checked. No chapter or page is cited, because the book was not opened in this session; the citation identifies the work a curator should check the general account against. This is the source named in the Journey declaration.
32. Supports the steppe hypothesis as argued from reconstructed wheeled-vehicle and wool vocabulary, the archaeology of the Pontic–Caspian region, and the Indo-Iranian loanword strata in Uralic. V55 verification basis: this session had no access to any source — WebFetch was egress-blocked for every host attempted and the WebSearch budget was exhausted before authoring — so the cited work was not retrieved, and no page, volume or figure quoted from it was re-checked. No page is cited and no reconstructed form is quoted from the book; the date of horse domestication, which the book discusses and which has been revised since, is deliberately not stated anywhere in this pack.