Proto-Indo-European

[CrazyEttin]

Can anyone recommend any good resources for proto-indo-european grammar?

[alice]

gsandi. Nothing else comes close.

[Grimalkin]

The venerable gsandi is a member here at the ZBB in case you weren't sure

[Xephyr]

He doesn't like to be bothered, though. Consider yourself fortunate if Lord Sandi even grants you an audience.

[CrazyEttin]

He doesn't like to be bothered, though. Consider yourself fortunate if Lord Sandi even grants you an audience.

Ok now i'm scared.

EDIT: I read his website, it's got a whole page about nominal morphology in PIE! Yes i know wikipedia has an article about it, but it has material from many different reconstructions so it's a bit confusing. This one's much better.

EDIT2: Ok now i'm confused again. Gsandi's site uses gwenex-s as an example, but wiktionary says it should be gʷḗn. Yes i know Gsandi's site uses different orthography, but even counting that it's still different. Every source seems to have it's own idea about proto-indo-european, and it's very confusing, since some of those sites don't even say which reconstruction they are using. It seems the universe is against me making indo-european conlang or even understanding proto-indo-european grammar in general.

[WeepingElf]

There are many controversial matters, and some differences in detail between reconstructions from different authors (and gsandi not always follows the majority opinion), and many things are left to be desired, for instance and up-to-date etymological dictionary. Also, PIE grammar is fiendishly complex, to the point that it is hardly an overstatement to say that every verb was irregular. A good handbook is Indo-European Language and Culture by Benjamin W. Fortson IV.

[CrazyEttin]

There are many controversial matters, and some differences in detail between reconstructions from different authors (and gsandi not always follows the majority opinion), and many things are left to be desired, for instance and up-to-date etymological dictionary. Also, PIE grammar is fiendishly complex, to the point that it is hardly an overstatement to say that every verb was irregular. A good handbook is Indo-European Language and Culture by Benjamin W. Fortson IV.

Thanks, i'll see if the university library has that (I study geosciences so i don't know much about what books the linguists have in their part of the library).

[Drydic]

It should also be pointed out that different sources can be dealing with different stages of the language.
As for gwenex-s vs. gʷḗn, look at the declension on wikitionary. Every form except the nominative and vocative have *h₂, which, checking gsandi's site, is the 'standard' transcription for his x. Also, the instrumental singulars: gunex-'e vs. gʷnéh₂(e)h₁, again checking reveals that ' = h₁. The gu vs gʷ I suspect is gsandi's showing an older stage of PIE than wikitionary (where gʷn wasn't yet an acceptable cluster; this also would explain the -s in the nominative, as the feminine gender [and its lack of nom. -s in many words] is one of the latest features to emerge in PIE), or possibly a differing treatment of labiovelars (less likely). The first syllable vowels being different is probably another result of different timeframes; I'm a bit shakier here, but gwene- just looks like an older form of gʷḗn, with the 2nd *e lengthening the first in the Nominative and absorbed into h₂ (if it even existed; iirc gsandi's system of laryngeals frequently shows (coloring?) vowels in addition to them, but don't quote me on that) in the other cases. These two really aren't as far apart as they seem.

[Dewrad]

Go to the Proto-Indo-European page at wikipedia. Scroll down to the bottom. From one of the seven works listed under the "Introductory Works" heading of the "References" section, pick one. Which one is most appropriate for you depends on the purposes for which you want to know about PIE grammar. E.g., if you just want a handbook of PIE to derive a conlang from, Szemerényi is pretty good. If you want to know more of the theoretical bases, Beekes or Lehmann. For an all-round introduction to the culture as well as the language, Fortson.

[Count Iblis]

I recommend both Szemerenyi and Beekes. Szemerenyi is more detailed and gives more raw data, but is a bit outdated as far as phonology and, to a lesser extent, morphology, goes. Beekes is more modern, but leaves out a lot of data that would be needed to understand why he reconstructs things the way he does. Neither one does a good job of incorporating Anatolian data though.

[CrazyEttin]

There are many controversial matters, and some differences in detail between reconstructions from different authors (and gsandi not always follows the majority opinion), and many things are left to be desired, for instance and up-to-date etymological dictionary. Also, PIE grammar is fiendishly complex, to the point that it is hardly an overstatement to say that every verb was irregular. A good handbook is Indo-European Language and Culture by Benjamin W. Fortson IV.

Thanks to this post i finally tried to read wikipedia article on PIE verbs and understand what i'm reading. I now have only one question: How on earth could the proto-indo-european speakers themselves speak their language.

[CaesarVincens]

Keep in mind that our reconstructions are approximations; no matter how good the reconstruction may be.

There may be features that cannot be reconstructed, on the one hand. Or shared innovations that are used, when perhaps they shouldn't.

That's all to say, they could speak it (and learn it) as easily as anyone who speaks a "hideous" language.

[CrazyEttin]

That's all to say, they could speak it (and learn it) as easily as anyone who speaks a "hideous" language.

I know, it was just a joke.