A Tentative Syntax of Modern Indoeuropean

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Fernando López-Menchero Díez Ópitjī eurōpā́ iosjo kṓnātijā kómtagtis A tentative syntax of Modern Indoeuropean Version 1. March 2013
Énduktis Sindhueuropājās átidemtis dn̥ ghwās məgnós áiwesi bhébhowe wighowos. Káputlom wenghos ghi egēsmn̥ dhn̥ ghewós skribhtī ́ tristimónjosjo wéseti, ítətom telom stúdjosjo dhugtr̥ dn̥ ghwãm wr̥ dhomeni keitoi. Bheustjos paukom ad wr̥ tnóm esti nū ad kómtagtijoi wóqqejmenos wilowoi. Polā ́ sā swḗristā aw esti werijosei dn̥ ghuwidjōi əptéwijōi. Tosjo enskroibhī meinom nē newī sindhueuropājosjo kómtagtjos pl̥ nowr̥ gnā́ aposkroibhodeiktim esti, ghina spekjẽm plḗjestā n̥ gnōtā́ dāiteī ́ nū́tenāi wéseti. Ati káiwonim démomos áitijom aw móghnijom protimonom bhocóis cójistois kowésmn̥ bhos sm̥ bhodhóm. Protimonos so oqoskīrḗd krītós órtujēd esti, qos penqe sm̥ ghesla átnōm prāi bhāstor. Bhod ólterom sesgesmn̥ sindhueuropājāi ambhi kómtagteī ghoretum chélomos, jota kṓnāiwos enskroibhos so bhrougis sjēti newōm jékmonom ordhésmenei awti eti práiloghom proti gnōnom déikmenei, enpronktī newa dhébhjosawe ékslegmona atidemtipropodōi n̥ serṓi. Prówelutijom jekmn̥ stānom dektéwijom esti sólwotos bhātrodeqsteī ́ . Pelúwijes pr̥ kskās wḗropropēd dew n̥ lūtās, mənḗsonti, déikmn̥ tos kem ptōtis pérəmāms regonts sjūtra. Esti weteljājãm dn̥ ghwãm pérəmom próitijom, jóqodhei ántitjom sedleinom preismēd sémlibhos génesjom bhrū́gjetoi démtibhos; komsqr̥ teinom awti stā́nejom awti génesjom; ghōdheinom, loudhweinom senoprekonjokloweinomqe dətēiwom. Nūper dúsqoristom kómmoinim rektum tosmei ádklētm̥ , ud edqom an bhūt. Jotna bholetum wélīmes toqe peluwom loisṓm, qoi kóbotos peros ékosmi stéighmenei ménmenjoi onənḗr. Tōdem bhúrtjolom epidhídhēntes, epi gígantom skándomos omsons. Introduction The reconstruction of Indoeuropean language has always been a big challenge. The main difficulty is the lack of direct written testimony, so that the base for study lies mainly on the vocabulary of its daughther languages. Little attention has been paid until now to its syntactic grammar analysis. This approach is however very important to attain a wider knowledge of the language. The aim of this document is not to present a fully fledged description of the new Indoeuropean syntax, since most of its aspects remain unknown at the present time. We just reconstruct a partial but possible pattern squaring with the current understanding of Late Indoeuropean in accordance with prevailing theories. This pattern is obviously different from the original one which was spoken some five millennia ago. We definitely wish to encourage further research on indoeuropean syntax, so that this temptative document may be useful to raise further issues or even counter the available information, bringing in new or more solid items into our reconstruction process. An evolutive state of the issue has to be accepted in the presentation of the model as whole. Many questions will probably long remain unsolved, as for instance the case governing the absolute clauses. Italic languages have an absolute ablative, whereas Ancient Greek uses mainly the genitive for similar constructions; Sanskrit either the locative or the genitive; Gothic, Lithuanian and Old Church Slavonic the dative. It is for the moment very difficult to determine a common denominator for this, if it ever existed. We would also like to highlight the efforts of many scholars who have successfully contributed to step further in this monumental domain. By just laying a little brick, we ride on giants’ shoulders. 2
Page 4 and 5: A Tentative Syntax of Modern Indoeu
Page 26 and 27: ́ ̥ ́ A Tentative Syntax of Mode
Page 28 and 29: ̥ ́ ̥ ́ ̥ ́ ̥ ́ ̥ ́ A Ten
Page 30 and 31: ̥ ̥ ̥ ̥ ̥ ̥ ̥ ̥ ̥ ̥ ̥ ̥
Page 32 and 33: ̥ ̥ ̥ ̥ A Tentative Syntax of M
Page 34 and 35: ́ A Tentative Syntax of Modern Ind
Page 38 and 39: ̥ A Tentative Syntax of Modern Ind
Page 52 and 53:
A Tentative Syntax of Modern Indoeu
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
́ A Tentative Syntax of Modern Ind
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
́ ́ ̥ A Tentative Syntax of Mode
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
̥ A Tentative Syntax of Modern Ind
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
̥ ̥ ̥ ̥ ̥ ̥ ̥ ̥ ̥ ̥ A Ten
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
̥ A Tentative Syntax of Modern Ind
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208 and 209:
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
Page 218 and 219:
Page 220 and 221:
Page 222 and 223:
Page 224 and 225:
Page 226 and 227:
Page 228 and 229:
Page 230 and 231:
Page 232 and 233:
Page 234 and 235:
Page 236 and 237:
Page 238 and 239:
Page 240 and 241:
show all

A Tentative Syntax of Modern Indoeuropean

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?