{"history":[],"article":{"id":"7f75aaa5-b1c2-4bf3-b4a0-57e57e4612d9","title":"Proto-Indo-European nominals","slug":"proto-indo-european-nominals","content":":::summary\n:::\n\n# \n**Proto-Indo-European nominals** include [nouns](https://bliptext.com/articles/noun), [adjectives](https://bliptext.com/articles/adjective), and pro[nouns](https://bliptext.com/articles/noun).\nTheir [grammatical forms](https://bliptext.com/articles/morphology-linguistics) and [meanings](https://bliptext.com/articles/semantics) have been reconstructed by modern linguists, based on similarities found across all [Indo-European languages](https://bliptext.com/articles/indo-european-languages).\nThis article discusses nouns and adjectives; [Proto-Indo-European pronouns](https://bliptext.com/articles/proto-indo-european-pronouns) are treated elsewhere.\nThe [Proto-Indo-European language](https://bliptext.com/articles/proto-indo-european-language) (PIE) had eight or nine [cases](https://bliptext.com/articles/grammatical-case), three [numbers](https://bliptext.com/articles/grammatical-number) (singular, [dual](https://bliptext.com/articles/dual-grammatical-number) and plural) and probably originally two [genders](https://bliptext.com/articles/grammatical-gender) (animate and neuter), with the animate later splitting into the masculine and the feminine.\nNominals fell into multiple different [declensions](https://bliptext.com/articles/declension).\nMost of them had word stems ending in a consonant (called [athematic](https://bliptext.com/articles/athematic) stems) and exhibited a complex pattern of [accent shifts](https://bliptext.com/articles/proto-indo-european-accent) and/or vowel changes ([ablaut](https://bliptext.com/articles/indo-european-ablaut)) among the different cases.\nTwo declensions ended in a vowel and are called thematic; they were more regular and became more common during the history of PIE and its older daughter languages.\nPIE very frequently derived nominals from verbs.\nJust as English giver and gift are ultimately related to the verb give, 'giver' and 'gift' are derived from 'to give', but the practice was much more common in PIE.\nFor example, 'foot' was derived from 'to tread', and 'house' from 'to build'.\n\n# Morphology\nThe basic structure of Proto-Indo-European nouns and adjectives was the same as that of [PIE verbs](https://bliptext.com/articles/pie-verb).\nA lexical word (as would appear in a dictionary) was formed by adding a suffix (S) onto a [root](https://bliptext.com/articles/proto-indo-european-root) (R) to form a stem.\nThe word was then [inflected](https://bliptext.com/articles/inflection) by adding an ending (E) to the stem.\nThe root indicates a basic concept, often a verb (e.g. 'give'), while the stem carries a more specific nominal meaning based on the combination of root and suffix (e.g. 'giver', 'gift').\nSome stems cannot clearly be broken up into root and suffix altogether, as in 'bear'.\nThe ending carries grammatical information, including case, number, and gender.\nGender is an inherent property of a noun but is part of the inflection of an adjective, because it must agree with the gender of the noun it modifies.\nThus, the general morphological form of such words is R+S+E:\nThe process of forming a lexical stem from a root is known in general as [derivational morphology](https://bliptext.com/articles/derivational-morphology), while the process of inflecting that stem is known as inflectional morphology.\nAs in other languages, the possible suffixes that can be added to a given root, and the meaning that results, are not entirely predictable, while the process of inflection is largely predictable in both form and meaning.\nOriginally, extensive ablaut (vowel variation, between and Ø, i.e. no vowel) occurred in PIE, in both derivation and inflection and in the root, suffix, and ending.\nVariation in the position of the accent likewise occurred in both derivation and inflection, and is often considered part of the ablaut system (which is described in more detail [below](https://bliptext.com/articles/)).\nFor example, the [nominative](https://bliptext.com/articles/nominative) form 'lake' (composed of the root in the ablaut form, the suffix in the form and the ending in the form ) had the [genitive](https://bliptext.com/articles/genitive) (root form , suffix and ending ).\nIn this word, the nominative has the ablaut vowels while the genitive has the ablaut vowels — i.e. all three components have different ablaut vowels, and the stress position has also moved.\nA large number of different patterns of ablaut variation existed; speakers had to both learn the ablaut patterns and memorize which pattern went with which word.\nThere was a certain regularity of which patterns occurred with which suffixes and formations, but with many exceptions.\nAlready by late PIE times, this system was extensively simplified, and daughter languages show a steady trend towards more and more regularization and simplification.\nFar more simplification occurred in the late PIE nominal system than in the verbal system, where the original PIE ablaut variations were maintained essentially intact well into the recorded history of conservative daughter languages such as [Sanskrit](https://bliptext.com/articles/sanskrit) and [Ancient Greek](https://bliptext.com/articles/ancient-greek), as well as in the [Germanic languages](https://bliptext.com/articles/germanic-languages) (in the form of [strong verbs](https://bliptext.com/articles/germanic-strong-verb)).\n\n## Root nouns\nPIE also had a class of monosyllabic root nouns which lack a suffix, the ending being directly added to the root (as in 'house', derived from 'build' ).\nThese nouns can also be interpreted as having a [zero](https://bliptext.com/articles/null-morpheme) suffix or one without a phonetic body.\nVerbal stems have corresponding morphological features, the root [present](https://bliptext.com/articles/present-tense) and the root [aorist](https://bliptext.com/articles/aorist).\n\n## Complex nominals\nNot all nominals fit the basic R+S+E pattern.\nSome were formed with additional prefixes.\nAn example is 'nest', derived from the verbal root 'sit' by adding a local prefix and thus meaning \"where [the bird] sits down\" or the like.\nA special kind of prefixation, called [reduplication](https://bliptext.com/articles/reduplication), uses the first part of the root plus a vowel as a prefix.\nFor example, 'turn' gives 'wheel', and 'brown' gives 'beaver'.\nThis type of derivation is also found in verbs, mainly to form the [perfect](https://bliptext.com/articles/perfect-grammar).\nAs with PIE verbs, a distinction is made between [primary formations](https://bliptext.com/articles/pie-verbs), which are words formed directly from a root as described above, and [secondary formations](https://bliptext.com/articles/pie-verbs), which are formed from existing words (whether primary or secondary themselves).\n\n## Athematic and thematic nominals\nA fundamental distinction is made between thematic and athematic nominals.\nThe stem of athematic nominals ends in a consonant.\nThey have the original complex system of accent/ablaut alternations described above and are generally held as more archaic.\nThematic nominals, which became more and more common during the times of later PIE and its younger daughter languages, have a stem ending in a thematic vowel, in almost all grammatical cases, sometimes ablauting to.\nSince all roots end in a consonant, all thematic nominals have suffixes ending in a vowel, and none are root nouns.\nThe accent is fixed on the same syllable throughout the inflection.\nFrom the perspective of the daughter languages, a distinction is often made between vowel stems (that is, stems ending in a vowel: i-, u-, (y)ā-, (y)o-stems) and consonantic stems (the rest).\nHowever, from the PIE perspective, only the thematic (o-)stems are truly vocalic.\nStems ending in or such as are consonantic (i.e. athematic) because the is just the vocalic form of the glide, the full grade of the suffix being.\nPost-PIE ā was actually in PIE.\nAmong the most common athematic stems are root stems, i-stems, u-stems, eh₂-stems, n-stems, nt-stems, r-stems and s-stems.\nWithin each of these, numerous subclasses with their own inflectional peculiarities developed by late PIE times.\n\n# Grammatical categories\nPIE nouns and adjectives (as well as pronouns) are subject to the system of PIE nominal inflection with eight or nine cases: [nominative](https://bliptext.com/articles/nominative), [accusative](https://bliptext.com/articles/accusative-case), [vocative](https://bliptext.com/articles/vocative), [genitive](https://bliptext.com/articles/genitive), [dative](https://bliptext.com/articles/dative-case), [instrumental](https://bliptext.com/articles/instrumental-case), [ablative](https://bliptext.com/articles/ablative), [locative](https://bliptext.com/articles/locative), and possibly a directive or [allative](https://bliptext.com/articles/allative).\nThe so-called strong or direct cases are the nominative and the vocative for all numbers, and the accusative case for singular and dual (and possibly plural as well), and the rest are the weak or oblique cases.\nThis classification is relevant for inflecting the athematic nominals of different accent and ablaut classes.\n\n## Number\nThree [numbers](https://bliptext.com/articles/grammatical-number) were distinguished: singular, dual and plural.\nMany (possibly all) athematic neuter nouns had a special [collective](https://bliptext.com/articles/collective-number) form instead of the plural, which inflected with singular endings, but with the ending in the direct cases, and an amphikinetic accent/ablaut pattern (see below).\n\n## Gender\nLate PIE had three [genders](https://bliptext.com/articles/grammatical-gender), traditionally called masculine, feminine and neuter.\nGender or noun class is an inherent (lexical) property of each noun; all nouns in a language that have grammatical genders are assigned to one of its classes.\nThere was probably originally only an [animate](https://bliptext.com/articles/animacy) (masculine/feminine) versus an in[animate](https://bliptext.com/articles/animacy) (neuter) distinction.\nThis view is supported by the existence of certain classes of [Latin](https://bliptext.com/articles/latin) and [Ancient Greek](https://bliptext.com/articles/ancient-greek) adjectives which inflect only for two sets of endings: one for masculine and feminine, the other for neuter.\nFurther evidence comes from the [Anatolian languages](https://bliptext.com/articles/anatolian-languages) such as [Hittite](https://bliptext.com/articles/hittite-language) which exhibit only the animate and the neuter genders.\nThe feminine ending is thought to have developed from a collective/abstract suffix that also gave rise to the neuter collective.\nThe existence of combined collective and abstract grammatical forms can be seen in English words such as youth = \"the young people (collective)\" or \"young age (abstract)\".\nRemnants of this period exist in (for instance) the eh₂-stems, ih₂-stems, uh₂-stems and bare h₂-stems, which are found in daughter languages as ā-, ī-, ū- and a-stems, respectively.\nThey originally were the feminine equivalents of the o-stems, i-stems, u-stems and root nouns.\nAlready by late PIE times, however, this system was breaking down.\nbecame generalized as the feminine suffix, and eh₂-stem nouns evolved more and more in the direction of thematic o-stems, with fixed ablaut and accent, increasingly idiosyncratic endings and frequent borrowing of endings from the o-stems.\nNonetheless, clear traces of the earlier system are seen especially in [Sanskrit](https://bliptext.com/articles/sanskrit), where ī-stems and ū-stems still exist as distinct classes comprising largely feminine nouns.\nOver time, these stem classes merged with i-stems and u-stems, with frequent crossover of endings.\nGrammatical gender correlates only partially with sex, and almost exclusively when it relates to humans and domesticated animals.\nEven then, those correlations may not be consistent: nouns referring to adult males are usually masculine (father, brother, priest), nouns referring to adult females (mother, sister, priestess) are usually feminine, but [diminutives](https://bliptext.com/articles/diminutive) may be neuter regardless of referent, as in both Greek and German.\nGender may have also had a grammatical function, a change of gender within a sentence signaling the end of a [noun phrase](https://bliptext.com/articles/noun-phrase) (a head noun and its agreeing adjectives) and the start of a new one.\nAn alternative hypothesis to the two-gender view is that [Proto-Anatolian](https://bliptext.com/articles/proto-anatolian) inherited a three-gender PIE system, and subsequently Hittite and other Anatolian languages eliminated the feminine by merging it with the masculine.\n\n## Case endings\nSome endings are difficult to reconstruct and not all authors reconstruct the same sets of endings.\nFor example, the original form of the genitive plural is a particular thorny issue, because different daughter languages appear to reflect different proto-forms.\nIt is variously reconstructed as, and so on.\nMeanwhile, the dual endings of cases other than the merged nominative/vocative/accusative are often considered impossible to reconstruct because these endings are attested sparsely and diverge radically in different languages.\nThe following shows three modern mainstream reconstructions.\nSihler (1995) remains closest to the data, often reconstructing multiple forms when daughter languages show divergent outcomes.\nRinge (2006) is somewhat more speculative, willing to assume analogical changes in some cases to explain divergent outcomes from a single source form.\nFortson (2004) is between Sihler and Ringe.\nThe thematic vowel ablauts to only in word-final position in the vocative singular, and before in the neuter nominative and accusative plural.\nThe vocative singular is also the only case for which the thematic nouns show accent retraction, a leftward shift of the accent, denoted by.\n†The dative, instrumental and ablative plural endings probably contained a but are of uncertain structure otherwise.\nThey might also have been of post-PIE date.\n§For athematic nouns, an endingless locative is reconstructed in addition to the ordinary locative singular in.\nIn contrast to the other weak cases, it typically has full or lengthened grade of the stem.\nAn alternative reconstruction is found in Beekes (1995).\nThis reconstruction does not give separate tables for the thematic and athematic endings, assuming that they were originally the same and only differentiated in daughter languages.\n\n# Athematic accent/ablaut classes\nThere is a general consensus as to which nominal accent-ablaut patterns must be reconstructed for Proto-Indo-European.\nGiven that the foundations for the system were laid by a group of scholars ([Schindler](https://bliptext.com/articles/jochem-schindler), [Eichner](https://bliptext.com/articles/heiner-eichner), [Rix](https://bliptext.com/articles/helmut-rix), and [Hoffmann](https://bliptext.com/articles/karl-hoffmann-linguist)) during the 1964 Erlanger Kolloquium, which discussed the works of [Pedersen](https://bliptext.com/articles/holger-pedersen-linguist) and [Kuiper](https://bliptext.com/articles/franciscus-bernardus-jacobus-kuiper) on nominal accent-ablaut patterns in PIE, the system is sometimes referred to as the Erlangen model.\n\n## Early PIE\nEarly PIE nouns had complex patterns of ablation according to which the root, the stem and the ending all showed ablaut variations.\nPolysyllabic athematic nominals (type R+S+E) exhibit four characteristic patterns, which include accent and ablaut alternations throughout the paradigm between the root, the stem and the ending.\nRoot nouns (type R+E) show a similar behavior but with only two patterns.\nThe patterns called \"Narten\" are, at least formally, analogous to the [Narten presents](https://bliptext.com/articles/narten-present) in verbs, as they alternate between full and lengthened grades.\nNotes:\nThe classification of the amphikinetic root nouns is disputed.\nSince those words have no suffix, they differ from the amphikinetic polysyllables in the strong cases (no o-grade) and in the locative singular (no e-grade suffix).\nSome scholars prefer to call them amphikinetic and the corresponding polysyllables holokinetic (or holodynamic, from holos = whole).\nSome also list mesostatic (meso = middle) and teleutostatic types, with the accent fixed on the suffix and the ending, respectively, but their existence in PIE is disputed.\nThe classes can then be grouped into three static (acrostatic, mesostatic, teleutostatic) and three or four mobile (proterokinetic, hysterokinetic, amphikinetic, holokinetic) paradigms.\n\n## \"Late PIE\"\nBy late PIE, the above system had been already significantly eroded, with one of the root ablaut grades tending to be extended throughout the paradigm.\nThe erosion is much more extensive in all the daughter languages, with only the oldest stages of most languages showing any root ablaut and typically only in a small number of irregular nouns:\nThe most extensive remains are in Vedic Sanskrit and Old Avestan (the oldest recorded stages of the oldest Indic and Iranian languages, c. 1700–1300 BC); the younger stages of the same languages already show extensive regularization.\nIn many cases, a former ablauting paradigm was generalized in the daughter languages but in different ways in each language.\nFor example, Ancient Greek dóru 'spear' < PIE nominative 'wood, tree' and [Old English](https://bliptext.com/articles/old-english) trēo 'tree' < PIE genitive reflect different stems of a PIE ablauting paradigm, which is still reflected directly in Vedic Sanskrit nom.\ndā́ru 'wood', gen. drṓs.\nSimilarly, PIE can be reconstructed for 'knee' from Ancient Greek gónu and Old English cnēo.\nIn that case, there is no extant ablauting paradigm in a single language, but Avestan accusative žnūm and [Modern Persian](https://bliptext.com/articles/modern-persian) zānū are attested, which strongly implies that [Proto-Iranian](https://bliptext.com/articles/proto-iranian) had an ablauting paradigm.\nThat is quite possible for Avestan as well, but that cannot be certain since the nominative is not extant.\nAn ablauting paradigm can also clearly be reconstructed from 'foot', based on Greek pous gen. podós (< ) vs. Latin pēs gen. pedis (< ) vs. Old English fōt (< ), with differing ablaut grades among cognate forms in different languages.\nIn some cases, ablaut would be expected based on the form (given numerous other examples of ablauting nouns of the same form), but a single ablaut variant is found throughout the paradigm.\nIn such cases, it is often assumed that the noun had showed ablaut in early PIE but was generalized to a single form by late PIE or shortly afterwards.\nAn example is Greek génus 'chin, jaw', Sanskrit hánus 'jaw', Latin gena 'cheek', Gothic kinnus 'cheek'.\nAll except the Latin form suggest a masculine u-stem with non-ablauting PIE root, but certain irregularities (the position of the accent, the unexpected feminine ā-stem form in Latin, the unexpected Gothic stem kinn- < ǵenw-, the ablaut found in Greek gnáthos 'jaw' < PIE , Lithuanian žándas 'jawbone' < ) suggest an original ablauting neuter noun in early PIE.\nIt generalized the nominative ablaut in late PIE and switched to the masculine u-stem in the post-PIE period.\nAnother example is 'night'; an acrostatic root paradigm might be expected based on the form, but the consistent stem is found throughout the family.\nWith the discovery of Hittite, however, the form 'in the evening' was found, which is evidently a genitive; it indicates that early PIE actually had an acrostatic paradigm that was regularized by late PIE but after the separation of Hittite.\n\n## Leiden model\nKuiper's student Beekes, together with his colleague [Kortlandt](https://bliptext.com/articles/frederik-kortlandt), developed an alternative model on the basis of Pedersen's and Kuiper's works, described in detail in.\nSince the scholars who developed it and generally accept it are mostly from the [University of Leiden](https://bliptext.com/articles/university-of-leiden), it is generally dubbed the Leiden model.\nIt states that for earlier PIE, three accent types of inflection of consonant stems are to be reconstructed, and from them, all of the attested types can be derived:\nFor root nouns, accentuation could have been either static or mobile:\nThe thematic stem type was a recent innovation, with a thematic vowel originating from the hysterodynamic genitive singular form of athematic inflection, which had in pre-PIE the function of [ergative](https://bliptext.com/articles/ergative-case).\nThat is why there are o-stems but no e-stems and is suggested to be why thematic nouns show no ablaut or accentual mobility in inflection (for other theories on the origin of thematic vowel see [Thematic vowel: Origin in nouns](https://bliptext.com/articles/thematic-vowel)).\nThe general points of departure to the Erlangen model are:\n\n# Heteroclitic stems\nSome athematic noun stems have different final consonants in different cases and are termed heteroclitic stems.\nMost of the stems end in in the nominative and accusative singular, and in in the other cases.\nAn example of such r/n-stems is the acrostatic neuter 'water', genitive.\nThe suffixes and are also attested, as in the probably-proterokinetic 'fire', genitive or similar.\nAn l/n-stem is or 'sun', genitive or the like.\n\n# Derivation\nPIE had a number of ways to derive nominals from verbs or from other nominals.\nThese included\n\n## Accent/ablaut alternations\nFrom athematic nouns, derivatives could be created by shifting the accent to the right and thus switching to another accent/ablaut class: acrostatic to proterokinetic or amphikinetic, proterokinetic to amphikinetic or hysterokinetic, and so on.\nSuch derivations signified \"possessing, associated with\".\nAn example is proterokinetic 'sacred formulation' (Vedic bráhmaṇ-), from which amphikinetic 'priest' (Vedic brahmáṇ-) was derived.\nAnother ablaut alternation is 'horned' from 'horn, roe'.\nMany PIE adjectives formed this way were subsequently [nominalized](https://bliptext.com/articles/nominalize) in daughter languages.\nThematic nominals could also be derived by accent or ablaut changes.\nLeftward shift of the accent could turn an agentive word into a resultative one, for example 'sharp', but 'a slice' (from 'to cut'); 'carrier', but 'burden' (from 'carry').\nA special type of ablaut alternation was [vṛddhi derivation](https://bliptext.com/articles/v-ddhi-derivation), which typically lengthened a vowel, signifying \"of, belonging to, descended from\".\n\n## Affixation\nThese are some of the nominal affixes found in Proto-Indo-European\n\n## Compounding\nPIE had a number of possibilities to compound nouns.\nEndocentric or determinative compounds denote subclasses of their [head](https://bliptext.com/articles/head-linguistics) (usually the second part), as in English \"smalltalk\" or \"blackbird\".\nExocentric or possessive compounds, usually called [bahuvrihis](https://bliptext.com/articles/bahuvrihi), denote something possessing something, as in \"[Flatfoot](https://bliptext.com/articles/flatfoot-film) = [somebody] having flat feet\" or \"redthroat = [a bird] with a red throat\".\nThis type was much more common in old Indo-European languages; some doubt the existence of determinative compounds in PIE altogether.\nCompounds consisting of a nominal plus a verb (akin to English \"cowherd\") were common; those of a verb plus a nominal (\"pickpocket\"), less so.\nOther parts of speech also occurred as first part of compounds, such as [prepositions](https://bliptext.com/articles/preposition), numerals ( from 'three'), other [particles](https://bliptext.com/articles/particle-grammar) (, zero grade of 'not', seen in English \"un-\", Latin \"in-\", Greek \"a(n)-\") and adjectives ( 'tear', literally 'bitter-eye').\n\n# Adjectives\nAdjectives in PIE generally have the same form as nouns, although when paradigms are gender-specific more than one may be combined to form an adjectival paradigm, which must be declined for gender as well as number and case.\nThe main example of this is the o/eh₂-stem adjectives, which have masculine forms following masculine o-stems, feminine forms following eh₂-stems and neuter forms following neuter o-stems.\n\n## Caland-system adjectives\nA number of adjectival roots form part of the Caland system, named after Dutch Indologist [Willem Caland](https://bliptext.com/articles/willem-caland), who first formulated part of the system.\nThe cognates derived from these roots in different daughter languages often do not agree in formation, but show certain characteristic properties:\n\n## Comparison\n\n### Comparative\nThe comparative form (\"bigger, more beautiful\") could be formed by replacing an adjective's suffix with ; the resulting word is amphikinetic: 'big' (Latin magnus) → 'bigger' (Latin maior, maius), weak cases.\nA second suffix,, originally expressed contrast, as in Ancient Greek pó-tero-s 'which (of two)' or deksi-teró-s 'right (as opposed to left)'.\nIt later attained comparative function.\nFor example, the meaning of Ancient Greek sophṓteros 'wiser, the wiser one' developed from 'the wise one (of the two)'.\nEnglish far-ther also contains this suffix.\n\n### Superlative\nPIE probably expressed the superlative (\"biggest, most beautiful\") by adding a genitive plural noun to the adjective.\nInstead of 'the greatest of the gods', people said 'great of (=among) the gods'.\nStill, two suffixes have been reconstructed that have superlative meaning in daughter languages: one is or, the other or , composed of the zero grade of the comparative suffix plus an additional syllable.\nThey are generalisations of the ordinal numbers.\n\n# Sample declensions\nThe following are example declensions of a number of different types of nouns, based on the reconstruction of Ringe (2006).\nThe o-stems, are thematic, and all others are considered athematic.","current_revision":null,"created_by":"kACnuQmH5k9Nr5VNVEpVeg7XpvUmMctD","created_at":"2025-01-26T08:53:31.791Z","updated_at":"2025-01-26T08:53:31.791Z","search_vector":"'european':4 'indo':3 'nomin':5 'proto':2 'proto-indo-european':1","search_content":" \n \n\n# \n**Proto-Indo-European nominals** include [nouns](https://bliptext.com/articles/noun), [adjectives](https://bliptext.com/articles/adjective), and pro[nouns](https://bliptext.com/articles/noun).\nTheir [grammatical forms](https://bliptext.com/articles/morphology-linguistics) and [meanings](https://bliptext.com/articles/semantics) have been reconstructed by modern linguists, based on similarities found across all [Indo-European languages](https://bliptext.com/articles/indo-european-languages).\nThis article discusses nouns and adjectives; [Proto-Indo-European pronouns](https://bliptext.com/articles/proto-indo-european-pronouns) are treated elsewhere.\nThe [Proto-Indo-European language](https://bliptext.com/articles/proto-indo-european-language) (PIE) had eight or nine [cases](https://bliptext.com/articles/grammatical-case), three [numbers](https://bliptext.com/articles/grammatical-number) (singular, [dual](https://bliptext.com/articles/dual-grammatical-number) and plural) and probably originally two [genders](https://bliptext.com/articles/grammatical-gender) (animate and neuter), with the animate later splitting into the masculine and the feminine.\nNominals fell into multiple different [declensions](https://bliptext.com/articles/declension).\nMost of them had word stems ending in a consonant (called [athematic](https://bliptext.com/articles/athematic) stems) and exhibited a complex pattern of [accent shifts](https://bliptext.com/articles/proto-indo-european-accent) and/or vowel changes ([ablaut](https://bliptext.com/articles/indo-european-ablaut)) among the different cases.\nTwo declensions ended in a vowel and are called thematic; they were more regular and became more common during the history of PIE and its older daughter languages.\nPIE very frequently derived nominals from verbs.\nJust as English giver and gift are ultimately related to the verb give, 'giver' and 'gift' are derived from 'to give', but the practice was much more common in PIE.\nFor example, 'foot' was derived from 'to tread', and 'house' from 'to build'.\n\n# Morphology\nThe basic structure of Proto-Indo-European nouns and adjectives was the same as that of [PIE verbs](https://bliptext.com/articles/pie-verb).\nA lexical word (as would appear in a dictionary) was formed by adding a suffix (S) onto a [root](https://bliptext.com/articles/proto-indo-european-root) (R) to form a stem.\nThe word was then [inflected](https://bliptext.com/articles/inflection) by adding an ending (E) to the stem.\nThe root indicates a basic concept, often a verb (e.g. 'give'), while the stem carries a more specific nominal meaning based on the combination of root and suffix (e.g. 'giver', 'gift').\nSome stems cannot clearly be broken up into root and suffix altogether, as in 'bear'.\nThe ending carries grammatical information, including case, number, and gender.\nGender is an inherent property of a noun but is part of the inflection of an adjective, because it must agree with the gender of the noun it modifies.\nThus, the general morphological form of such words is R+S+E:\nThe process of forming a lexical stem from a root is known in general as [derivational morphology](https://bliptext.com/articles/derivational-morphology), while the process of inflecting that stem is known as inflectional morphology.\nAs in other languages, the possible suffixes that can be added to a given root, and the meaning that results, are not entirely predictable, while the process of inflection is largely predictable in both form and meaning.\nOriginally, extensive ablaut (vowel variation, between and Ø, i.e. no vowel) occurred in PIE, in both derivation and inflection and in the root, suffix, and ending.\nVariation in the position of the accent likewise occurred in both derivation and inflection, and is often considered part of the ablaut system (which is described in more detail [below](https://bliptext.com/articles/)).\nFor example, the [nominative](https://bliptext.com/articles/nominative) form 'lake' (composed of the root in the ablaut form, the suffix in the form and the ending in the form ) had the [genitive](https://bliptext.com/articles/genitive) (root form , suffix and ending ).\nIn this word, the nominative has the ablaut vowels while the genitive has the ablaut vowels — i.e. all three components have different ablaut vowels, and the stress position has also moved.\nA large number of different patterns of ablaut variation existed; speakers had to both learn the ablaut patterns and memorize which pattern went with which word.\nThere was a certain regularity of which patterns occurred with which suffixes and formations, but with many exceptions.\nAlready by late PIE times, this system was extensively simplified, and daughter languages show a steady trend towards more and more regularization and simplification.\nFar more simplification occurred in the late PIE nominal system than in the verbal system, where the original PIE ablaut variations were maintained essentially intact well into the recorded history of conservative daughter languages such as [Sanskrit](https://bliptext.com/articles/sanskrit) and [Ancient Greek](https://bliptext.com/articles/ancient-greek), as well as in the [Germanic languages](https://bliptext.com/articles/germanic-languages) (in the form of [strong verbs](https://bliptext.com/articles/germanic-strong-verb)).\n\n## Root nouns\nPIE also had a class of monosyllabic root nouns which lack a suffix, the ending being directly added to the root (as in 'house', derived from 'build' ).\nThese nouns can also be interpreted as having a [zero](https://bliptext.com/articles/null-morpheme) suffix or one without a phonetic body.\nVerbal stems have corresponding morphological features, the root [present](https://bliptext.com/articles/present-tense) and the root [aorist](https://bliptext.com/articles/aorist).\n\n## Complex nominals\nNot all nominals fit the basic R+S+E pattern.\nSome were formed with additional prefixes.\nAn example is 'nest', derived from the verbal root 'sit' by adding a local prefix and thus meaning \"where [the bird] sits down\" or the like.\nA special kind of prefixation, called [reduplication](https://bliptext.com/articles/reduplication), uses the first part of the root plus a vowel as a prefix.\nFor example, 'turn' gives 'wheel', and 'brown' gives 'beaver'.\nThis type of derivation is also found in verbs, mainly to form the [perfect](https://bliptext.com/articles/perfect-grammar).\nAs with PIE verbs, a distinction is made between [primary formations](https://bliptext.com/articles/pie-verbs), which are words formed directly from a root as described above, and [secondary formations](https://bliptext.com/articles/pie-verbs), which are formed from existing words (whether primary or secondary themselves).\n\n## Athematic and thematic nominals\nA fundamental distinction is made between thematic and athematic nominals.\nThe stem of athematic nominals ends in a consonant.\nThey have the original complex system of accent/ablaut alternations described above and are generally held as more archaic.\nThematic nominals, which became more and more common during the times of later PIE and its younger daughter languages, have a stem ending in a thematic vowel, in almost all grammatical cases, sometimes ablauting to.\nSince all roots end in a consonant, all thematic nominals have suffixes ending in a vowel, and none are root nouns.\nThe accent is fixed on the same syllable throughout the inflection.\nFrom the perspective of the daughter languages, a distinction is often made between vowel stems (that is, stems ending in a vowel: i-, u-, (y)ā-, (y)o-stems) and consonantic stems (the rest).\nHowever, from the PIE perspective, only the thematic (o-)stems are truly vocalic.\nStems ending in or such as are consonantic (i.e. athematic) because the is just the vocalic form of the glide, the full grade of the suffix being.\nPost-PIE ā was actually in PIE.\nAmong the most common athematic stems are root stems, i-stems, u-stems, eh₂-stems, n-stems, nt-stems, r-stems and s-stems.\nWithin each of these, numerous subclasses with their own inflectional peculiarities developed by late PIE times.\n\n# Grammatical categories\nPIE nouns and adjectives (as well as pronouns) are subject to the system of PIE nominal inflection with eight or nine cases: [nominative](https://bliptext.com/articles/nominative), [accusative](https://bliptext.com/articles/accusative-case), [vocative](https://bliptext.com/articles/vocative), [genitive](https://bliptext.com/articles/genitive), [dative](https://bliptext.com/articles/dative-case), [instrumental](https://bliptext.com/articles/instrumental-case), [ablative](https://bliptext.com/articles/ablative), [locative](https://bliptext.com/articles/locative), and possibly a directive or [allative](https://bliptext.com/articles/allative).\nThe so-called strong or direct cases are the nominative and the vocative for all numbers, and the accusative case for singular and dual (and possibly plural as well), and the rest are the weak or oblique cases.\nThis classification is relevant for inflecting the athematic nominals of different accent and ablaut classes.\n\n## Number\nThree [numbers](https://bliptext.com/articles/grammatical-number) were distinguished: singular, dual and plural.\nMany (possibly all) athematic neuter nouns had a special [collective](https://bliptext.com/articles/collective-number) form instead of the plural, which inflected with singular endings, but with the ending in the direct cases, and an amphikinetic accent/ablaut pattern (see below).\n\n## Gender\nLate PIE had three [genders](https://bliptext.com/articles/grammatical-gender), traditionally called masculine, feminine and neuter.\nGender or noun class is an inherent (lexical) property of each noun; all nouns in a language that have grammatical genders are assigned to one of its classes.\nThere was probably originally only an [animate](https://bliptext.com/articles/animacy) (masculine/feminine) versus an in[animate](https://bliptext.com/articles/animacy) (neuter) distinction.\nThis view is supported by the existence of certain classes of [Latin](https://bliptext.com/articles/latin) and [Ancient Greek](https://bliptext.com/articles/ancient-greek) adjectives which inflect only for two sets of endings: one for masculine and feminine, the other for neuter.\nFurther evidence comes from the [Anatolian languages](https://bliptext.com/articles/anatolian-languages) such as [Hittite](https://bliptext.com/articles/hittite-language) which exhibit only the animate and the neuter genders.\nThe feminine ending is thought to have developed from a collective/abstract suffix that also gave rise to the neuter collective.\nThe existence of combined collective and abstract grammatical forms can be seen in English words such as youth = \"the young people (collective)\" or \"young age (abstract)\".\nRemnants of this period exist in (for instance) the eh₂-stems, ih₂-stems, uh₂-stems and bare h₂-stems, which are found in daughter languages as ā-, ī-, ū- and a-stems, respectively.\nThey originally were the feminine equivalents of the o-stems, i-stems, u-stems and root nouns.\nAlready by late PIE times, however, this system was breaking down.\nbecame generalized as the feminine suffix, and eh₂-stem nouns evolved more and more in the direction of thematic o-stems, with fixed ablaut and accent, increasingly idiosyncratic endings and frequent borrowing of endings from the o-stems.\nNonetheless, clear traces of the earlier system are seen especially in [Sanskrit](https://bliptext.com/articles/sanskrit), where ī-stems and ū-stems still exist as distinct classes comprising largely feminine nouns.\nOver time, these stem classes merged with i-stems and u-stems, with frequent crossover of endings.\nGrammatical gender correlates only partially with sex, and almost exclusively when it relates to humans and domesticated animals.\nEven then, those correlations may not be consistent: nouns referring to adult males are usually masculine (father, brother, priest), nouns referring to adult females (mother, sister, priestess) are usually feminine, but [diminutives](https://bliptext.com/articles/diminutive) may be neuter regardless of referent, as in both Greek and German.\nGender may have also had a grammatical function, a change of gender within a sentence signaling the end of a [noun phrase](https://bliptext.com/articles/noun-phrase) (a head noun and its agreeing adjectives) and the start of a new one.\nAn alternative hypothesis to the two-gender view is that [Proto-Anatolian](https://bliptext.com/articles/proto-anatolian) inherited a three-gender PIE system, and subsequently Hittite and other Anatolian languages eliminated the feminine by merging it with the masculine.\n\n## Case endings\nSome endings are difficult to reconstruct and not all authors reconstruct the same sets of endings.\nFor example, the original form of the genitive plural is a particular thorny issue, because different daughter languages appear to reflect different proto-forms.\nIt is variously reconstructed as, and so on.\nMeanwhile, the dual endings of cases other than the merged nominative/vocative/accusative are often considered impossible to reconstruct because these endings are attested sparsely and diverge radically in different languages.\nThe following shows three modern mainstream reconstructions.\nSihler (1995) remains closest to the data, often reconstructing multiple forms when daughter languages show divergent outcomes.\nRinge (2006) is somewhat more speculative, willing to assume analogical changes in some cases to explain divergent outcomes from a single source form.\nFortson (2004) is between Sihler and Ringe.\nThe thematic vowel ablauts to only in word-final position in the vocative singular, and before in the neuter nominative and accusative plural.\nThe vocative singular is also the only case for which the thematic nouns show accent retraction, a leftward shift of the accent, denoted by.\n†The dative, instrumental and ablative plural endings probably contained a but are of uncertain structure otherwise.\nThey might also have been of post-PIE date.\n§For athematic nouns, an endingless locative is reconstructed in addition to the ordinary locative singular in.\nIn contrast to the other weak cases, it typically has full or lengthened grade of the stem.\nAn alternative reconstruction is found in Beekes (1995).\nThis reconstruction does not give separate tables for the thematic and athematic endings, assuming that they were originally the same and only differentiated in daughter languages.\n\n# Athematic accent/ablaut classes\nThere is a general consensus as to which nominal accent-ablaut patterns must be reconstructed for Proto-Indo-European.\nGiven that the foundations for the system were laid by a group of scholars ([Schindler](https://bliptext.com/articles/jochem-schindler), [Eichner](https://bliptext.com/articles/heiner-eichner), [Rix](https://bliptext.com/articles/helmut-rix), and [Hoffmann](https://bliptext.com/articles/karl-hoffmann-linguist)) during the 1964 Erlanger Kolloquium, which discussed the works of [Pedersen](https://bliptext.com/articles/holger-pedersen-linguist) and [Kuiper](https://bliptext.com/articles/franciscus-bernardus-jacobus-kuiper) on nominal accent-ablaut patterns in PIE, the system is sometimes referred to as the Erlangen model.\n\n## Early PIE\nEarly PIE nouns had complex patterns of ablation according to which the root, the stem and the ending all showed ablaut variations.\nPolysyllabic athematic nominals (type R+S+E) exhibit four characteristic patterns, which include accent and ablaut alternations throughout the paradigm between the root, the stem and the ending.\nRoot nouns (type R+E) show a similar behavior but with only two patterns.\nThe patterns called \"Narten\" are, at least formally, analogous to the [Narten presents](https://bliptext.com/articles/narten-present) in verbs, as they alternate between full and lengthened grades.\nNotes:\nThe classification of the amphikinetic root nouns is disputed.\nSince those words have no suffix, they differ from the amphikinetic polysyllables in the strong cases (no o-grade) and in the locative singular (no e-grade suffix).\nSome scholars prefer to call them amphikinetic and the corresponding polysyllables holokinetic (or holodynamic, from holos = whole).\nSome also list mesostatic (meso = middle) and teleutostatic types, with the accent fixed on the suffix and the ending, respectively, but their existence in PIE is disputed.\nThe classes can then be grouped into three static (acrostatic, mesostatic, teleutostatic) and three or four mobile (proterokinetic, hysterokinetic, amphikinetic, holokinetic) paradigms.\n\n## \"Late PIE\"\nBy late PIE, the above system had been already significantly eroded, with one of the root ablaut grades tending to be extended throughout the paradigm.\nThe erosion is much more extensive in all the daughter languages, with only the oldest stages of most languages showing any root ablaut and typically only in a small number of irregular nouns:\nThe most extensive remains are in Vedic Sanskrit and Old Avestan (the oldest recorded stages of the oldest Indic and Iranian languages, c. 1700–1300 BC); the younger stages of the same languages already show extensive regularization.\nIn many cases, a former ablauting paradigm was generalized in the daughter languages but in different ways in each language.\nFor example, Ancient Greek dóru 'spear' < PIE nominative 'wood, tree' and [Old English](https://bliptext.com/articles/old-english) trēo 'tree' < PIE genitive reflect different stems of a PIE ablauting paradigm, which is still reflected directly in Vedic Sanskrit nom.\ndā́ru 'wood', gen. drṓs.\nSimilarly, PIE can be reconstructed for 'knee' from Ancient Greek gónu and Old English cnēo.\nIn that case, there is no extant ablauting paradigm in a single language, but Avestan accusative žnūm and [Modern Persian](https://bliptext.com/articles/modern-persian) zānū are attested, which strongly implies that [Proto-Iranian](https://bliptext.com/articles/proto-iranian) had an ablauting paradigm.\nThat is quite possible for Avestan as well, but that cannot be certain since the nominative is not extant.\nAn ablauting paradigm can also clearly be reconstructed from 'foot', based on Greek pous gen. podós (< ) vs. Latin pēs gen. pedis (< ) vs. Old English fōt (< ), with differing ablaut grades among cognate forms in different languages.\nIn some cases, ablaut would be expected based on the form (given numerous other examples of ablauting nouns of the same form), but a single ablaut variant is found throughout the paradigm.\nIn such cases, it is often assumed that the noun had showed ablaut in early PIE but was generalized to a single form by late PIE or shortly afterwards.\nAn example is Greek génus 'chin, jaw', Sanskrit hánus 'jaw', Latin gena 'cheek', Gothic kinnus 'cheek'.\nAll except the Latin form suggest a masculine u-stem with non-ablauting PIE root, but certain irregularities (the position of the accent, the unexpected feminine ā-stem form in Latin, the unexpected Gothic stem kinn- < ǵenw-, the ablaut found in Greek gnáthos 'jaw' < PIE , Lithuanian žándas 'jawbone' < ) suggest an original ablauting neuter noun in early PIE.\nIt generalized the nominative ablaut in late PIE and switched to the masculine u-stem in the post-PIE period.\nAnother example is 'night'; an acrostatic root paradigm might be expected based on the form, but the consistent stem is found throughout the family.\nWith the discovery of Hittite, however, the form 'in the evening' was found, which is evidently a genitive; it indicates that early PIE actually had an acrostatic paradigm that was regularized by late PIE but after the separation of Hittite.\n\n## Leiden model\nKuiper's student Beekes, together with his colleague [Kortlandt](https://bliptext.com/articles/frederik-kortlandt), developed an alternative model on the basis of Pedersen's and Kuiper's works, described in detail in.\nSince the scholars who developed it and generally accept it are mostly from the [University of Leiden](https://bliptext.com/articles/university-of-leiden), it is generally dubbed the Leiden model.\nIt states that for earlier PIE, three accent types of inflection of consonant stems are to be reconstructed, and from them, all of the attested types can be derived:\nFor root nouns, accentuation could have been either static or mobile:\nThe thematic stem type was a recent innovation, with a thematic vowel originating from the hysterodynamic genitive singular form of athematic inflection, which had in pre-PIE the function of [ergative](https://bliptext.com/articles/ergative-case).\nThat is why there are o-stems but no e-stems and is suggested to be why thematic nouns show no ablaut or accentual mobility in inflection (for other theories on the origin of thematic vowel see [Thematic vowel: Origin in nouns](https://bliptext.com/articles/thematic-vowel)).\nThe general points of departure to the Erlangen model are:\n\n# Heteroclitic stems\nSome athematic noun stems have different final consonants in different cases and are termed heteroclitic stems.\nMost of the stems end in in the nominative and accusative singular, and in in the other cases.\nAn example of such r/n-stems is the acrostatic neuter 'water', genitive.\nThe suffixes and are also attested, as in the probably-proterokinetic 'fire', genitive or similar.\nAn l/n-stem is or 'sun', genitive or the like.\n\n# Derivation\nPIE had a number of ways to derive nominals from verbs or from other nominals.\nThese included\n\n## Accent/ablaut alternations\nFrom athematic nouns, derivatives could be created by shifting the accent to the right and thus switching to another accent/ablaut class: acrostatic to proterokinetic or amphikinetic, proterokinetic to amphikinetic or hysterokinetic, and so on.\nSuch derivations signified \"possessing, associated with\".\nAn example is proterokinetic 'sacred formulation' (Vedic bráhmaṇ-), from which amphikinetic 'priest' (Vedic brahmáṇ-) was derived.\nAnother ablaut alternation is 'horned' from 'horn, roe'.\nMany PIE adjectives formed this way were subsequently [nominalized](https://bliptext.com/articles/nominalize) in daughter languages.\nThematic nominals could also be derived by accent or ablaut changes.\nLeftward shift of the accent could turn an agentive word into a resultative one, for example 'sharp', but 'a slice' (from 'to cut'); 'carrier', but 'burden' (from 'carry').\nA special type of ablaut alternation was [vṛddhi derivation](https://bliptext.com/articles/v-ddhi-derivation), which typically lengthened a vowel, signifying \"of, belonging to, descended from\".\n\n## Affixation\nThese are some of the nominal affixes found in Proto-Indo-European\n\n## Compounding\nPIE had a number of possibilities to compound nouns.\nEndocentric or determinative compounds denote subclasses of their [head](https://bliptext.com/articles/head-linguistics) (usually the second part), as in English \"smalltalk\" or \"blackbird\".\nExocentric or possessive compounds, usually called [bahuvrihis](https://bliptext.com/articles/bahuvrihi), denote something possessing something, as in \"[Flatfoot](https://bliptext.com/articles/flatfoot-film) = [somebody] having flat feet\" or \"redthroat = [a bird] with a red throat\".\nThis type was much more common in old Indo-European languages; some doubt the existence of determinative compounds in PIE altogether.\nCompounds consisting of a nominal plus a verb (akin to English \"cowherd\") were common; those of a verb plus a nominal (\"pickpocket\"), less so.\nOther parts of speech also occurred as first part of compounds, such as [prepositions](https://bliptext.com/articles/preposition), numerals ( from 'three'), other [particles](https://bliptext.com/articles/particle-grammar) (, zero grade of 'not', seen in English \"un-\", Latin \"in-\", Greek \"a(n)-\") and adjectives ( 'tear', literally 'bitter-eye').\n\n# Adjectives\nAdjectives in PIE generally have the same form as nouns, although when paradigms are gender-specific more than one may be combined to form an adjectival paradigm, which must be declined for gender as well as number and case.\nThe main example of this is the o/eh₂-stem adjectives, which have masculine forms following masculine o-stems, feminine forms following eh₂-stems and neuter forms following neuter o-stems.\n\n## Caland-system adjectives\nA number of adjectival roots form part of the Caland system, named after Dutch Indologist [Willem Caland](https://bliptext.com/articles/willem-caland), who first formulated part of the system.\nThe cognates derived from these roots in different daughter languages often do not agree in formation, but show certain characteristic properties:\n\n## Comparison\n\n### Comparative\nThe comparative form (\"bigger, more beautiful\") could be formed by replacing an adjective's suffix with ; the resulting word is amphikinetic: 'big' (Latin magnus) → 'bigger' (Latin maior, maius), weak cases.\nA second suffix,, originally expressed contrast, as in Ancient Greek pó-tero-s 'which (of two)' or deksi-teró-s 'right (as opposed to left)'.\nIt later attained comparative function.\nFor example, the meaning of Ancient Greek sophṓteros 'wiser, the wiser one' developed from 'the wise one (of the two)'.\nEnglish far-ther also contains this suffix.\n\n### Superlative\nPIE probably expressed the superlative (\"biggest, most beautiful\") by adding a genitive plural noun to the adjective.\nInstead of 'the greatest of the gods', people said 'great of (=among) the gods'.\nStill, two suffixes have been reconstructed that have superlative meaning in daughter languages: one is or, the other or , composed of the zero grade of the comparative suffix plus an additional syllable.\nThey are generalisations of the ordinal numbers.\n\n# Sample declensions\nThe following are example declensions of a number of different types of nouns, based on the reconstruction of Ringe (2006).\nThe o-stems, are thematic, and all others are considered athematic.","revisionCount":0},"hasMore":false,"nextCursor":null}

History