Talk:Proto-Indo-Iranian language

"reconstructed" is enough

ok Nasz 06:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm glad you agree. I can live with the present version although the specialists differentiate between the "occurent proto-language" (the one that was actually spoken at a time past) and the "reconstructed proto-language" which is a scientific theory. We mix the two entities nicely in this article but in a text written for non-specialists it may be acceptable. I hope we can now move on. Friendly Neighbour 06:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

It would be nice to see the postulated phonology of Proto-Indo-Iranian. It currently seems to be lacking from this article. Cheers. Grover cleveland (talk) 06:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

What, no voiceless aspirates? --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 16:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)heReply

The voiceless aspirates of Sanskrit are usually hypothesized to originate from sequences of plosives + laryngeals. I don't think any authorities posit them in PII, except perhaps older sources that also posit them in PIE. Grover cleveland (talk) 22:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps somebody could clarify what are the origins of Avestan [f v θ ð x ɣ].

According to Beekes, pp. 73ff (where C means any consonant):

pC -> fC

tC -> θC

kC -> xC

but a preceding s prevents these developments.

v is just another name for w.

According to Beekes, ð and ɣ are merely allophones, of θ and g respectively.

Grover cleveland (talk) 23:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

The Indic languages and Iranian languages are a single branch of Indo-European known as Indo-Iranian. They are not two separate branches. NO historical linguist separates them. (Taivo (talk) 06:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC))Reply

There is no controversy whatsoever concerning the close genetic relationship between the Iranian and Indo-Aryan languages. They are not similar to Balto-Slavic, which is still somewhat controversial and not universally accepted as a valid node of Indo-European. Indo-Iranian is completely non-controversial. Do not continue trying to separate Iranian and Indo-Aryan as if they are separate branches of Indo-European--they are not. (Taivo (talk) 06:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC))Reply

There is no controversy about Indo-Iranian as a node of Indo-European. Show me a reference to one historical linguist that says there is. I'll show you references to a hundred linguists that prove otherwise. Stop edit warring here. (Taivo (talk) 07:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC))Reply

Somebody has redirected Proto-Indo-Aryan here. I wonder why. Now we have Proto-Iranian as it should be, but no Proto-Indo-Aryan, although both are parallel descendants of Proto-Indo-Iranian. It'd be nice to have an explanation, if there's any. 85.76.196.54 (talk) 01:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

It's been that way for two years. I doubt that you'll get an explanation after such a long time. --Taivo (talk) 01:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Well, maybe, but the person who did the redirection seems still to be around. ¶ Given the scarcity of those interwiki links relating to Proto-Indo-Iranian, it seems to be the case that people aren't too accustomed to thinking in terms of family trees. And Proto-Iranian lacks almost all iw parallels. Taivo, I'd like to hear your opinion on this. To me, it's quite feasible to think of Proto-Indo-Aryan as the hypothetical, reconstructed ancestor to the Indo-Aryan languages, in the same vein as it is feasible to think of Proto-Iranian as the hypothetical proto-language of the Iranian branch. Or should we stop at Proto-Indo-Iranian? 85.77.76.79 (talk) 13:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC) (= Neander )Reply

I agree with you that there's a distinct linguistic entity that was Proto-Indo-Aryan. If someone is willing to write the article, then it should, indeed, have a separate existence. --Taivo (talk) 16:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Redirect now pointed in the direction of Indo-Aryan languages, as protolang redirects usually do. (Vedic Sanskrit might've been another choice…) --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 20:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

What evidence is there for the laryngeal in PII? Is there a particular reason why it must be reconstructed still for PII? CodeCat (talk) 21:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

I’m no expert in Avestan but the form for ‘and’ is given as:

   ́ča "and"

The first character is a combining character — is this just a misordering for:

    č́a "and"

Or should the first character be a U+2032 prime? babbage (talk) 17:05, 16 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

I think we are used to proto-languages being thought of as somewhat more theoretical in nature than historically attested languages, and for this reason it seems logical to simply label them as "proto-x language". However, this proto language is very unique in that we can reconstruct the actual autonym of the language quite confidently. I'd be interested to hear opinions on the prospect in using a title or at least a noted alternative name which deviates from the typical proto language naming formula. 2607:FEA8:4B5C:27AC:B193:E977:9068:FE7B (talk) 07:08, 11 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

The example for Lubotsky's Law violates the conditions for Lubotsky's Law. Did whoever write that part miss that? Lubotsky's Law (at least as stated in Beekes' Grammar of Gatha Avestan which is cited) is formulated *H > 0 / _GC where G is a voiced but not aspirated stop. So the example just...doesn't make sense. It should also probably be stated that Lubotsky's Law isn't exactly the communis opinio.

Vindafarna (talk) 00:39, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply