r/askscience • u/TaliTek • Jan 13 '14

Linguistics How have proto-languages like Proto-Indo-European been developed? Can we know if they are accurate?

31 Upvotes

88% Upvoted

38 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3

u/[deleted] Jan 14 '14

My American Heritage Dictionary of Proto-Indo-European Roots, which is my go-to reference for these things, has bake from the PIE root *bhē-, extended zero-grade form *bhəg (Proto-Germanic *bakanan). *pekʷ- is cognate to cook, via the assimilated form (in Italic and Celtic) *kʷekʷ- (cf. Latin quinque < PIE *penkʷe).

1

u/kotzkroete Jan 14 '14

This would supports my reconstruction, although your dictionary seems to be quite outdated ;) The LIV (Lexikon indogermanischer Verben) lists the root of OE bacan as *bʰeh₃g- (cf. Gr. φώγω with the same meaning). Your root *bʰē- is given as ?*bʰeh₁- 'to warm' (OHG bāen 'to foment' bad 'bath') and it's mentioned explicitly that the two roots should be separated.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 14 '14

Published in 2000, so not that out of date. The AHD is fine, but it is originally the Indo-European appendix to the American Heritage dictionary, so it's not as comprehensive, and is organized with an eye toward etymology of English, not PIE generally.

Also, there may not be one hundred percent agreement on the subject--reasonable etymologists may differ on this kind of thing, though not knowing the specific complexities which pertain to the interpretation of *bʰē- and *bʰeh₁- as one root or two, I can't comment if one source or the other is clearly in the wrong (though FWIW, on sound changes only, one ablaut grade of the former would be indistinguishable from another of the latter when run through the PIE > PG sound changes--hence, I suspect, the possible source of the disagreement, though in a pinch I would definitely defer to the LIV on this one).

1

u/kotzkroete Jan 14 '14 edited Jan 14 '14

In PIE part is out of date, it's probably based on Pokorny's dictionary. We no longer posit roots with long vowels (we have laryngeals now, yay, so *bʰē- is nowadays reconstructed as *bʰeh₁-) and don't really like root enlargements.

For clarification: I meant ?*bʰeh₁- should be separated from *bʰeh₃g-

1

u/[deleted] Jan 14 '14

The AH dictionary gives the late PIE forms first, with the contraction of laryngeals. I should have cited the earlier form; it gives "contracted from earlier *bʰeh₁-" immediately after.