Many points of controversy surround the reconstruction of PIE, and indeed surround any reconstruction effort. Some are methodological questions (for example, how do we distinguish archaisms from innovations?); some are philosophical (for example, what kinds of evidence are admissible in reconstruction?); some are simply differences of opinion based on the preconceptions and orientation of the investigator (for example, which is more archaic, Hittite or Sanskrit?).
Ph. Baldi (Baldi 1983, p.14-15, An Introduction to the Indo-European languages. quoted from Kazanas, N. (2015). Vedic and IndoEuropean studies. Aditya Prakashan.
O. Szemerényi admits that reconstructions are used to facilitate comparisons, using one word instead of many IE variants, and cites Hermann’s statement that “complete forms (e.g. *deiwos [=S deva-s]) cannot be reconstructed at all, only single sounds, and even these are meant as approximation only”. Twenty years earlier Burrow had said much the same: “in the case of Indo-European it is certain that there was no such unitary language which can be reached by means of comparison… the Indo-European that we can reach by this means was already deeply split up into a series of varying dialects”. More recently, exhibiting scepticism like mine, X. Tremblay writes (of various IE branches but mainly Iranian): “la grammaire comparée est en réalité radicalement incapable de discriminer entre parenté divergente … et parenté convergente”.
(Szemerényi 1996: 33) Szemerényi O. 1996 Introduction to Indo-European Linguistics (transl from German 1990, with additional notes and references) Oxford, OUP.
(1973:11) Burrow T. 1973 The Sanskrit Language (1955 rev ed) London, Faber.
(2005: 63) Tremblay X. 2005 ‘Grammaire comparé et grammaire historique’ in Fussman G., Kellens J., et al.
Quoted from Kazanas, N. (2009). Indo-Aryan origins and other Vedic issues. Chapter 9
[W]e must not make the mistake of confusing our methods, and the results flowing from them, with the facts; we must not delude ourselves into believing that our retrogressive method of reconstruction matches, step by step, the real progression of linguistic history. ... We now find ourselves in possession of two entirely different items, both of which we call Proto-Indo-European: one, a set of reconstructed formulae not representative of any reality; the other, an undiscovered (possibly undiscoverable) language of whose reality we may be certain. ... Arguing about 'Proto-Indo-European' can be meaningful and fruitful ... if we always explain whether we are talking about the one or the other—which, as we well know, we do not do.
Ernst Pulgram (1959), as quoted by E. F. Bryant, The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture: The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate (Oxford University Press, 2001), Ch. 4
Many points of controversy surround the reconstruction of PIE, and indeed surround any reconstruction effort. Some are methodological questions (for example, how do we distinguish archaisms from innovations?); some are philosophical (for example, what kinds of evidence are admissible in reconstruction?); some are simply differences of opinion based on the preconceptions and orientation of the investigator (for example, which is more archaic, Hittite or Sanskrit?).
Ph. Baldi 1983, p.14-15, An Introduction to the Indo-European languages.[1]. Quoted in Kazanas, N. (2015). Vedic and IndoEuropean studies. Aditya Prakashan.
[W]e know there was a Proto- Indo-European language; we do not know to what extent our reconstructions approximate it.
E. F. Bryant, The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture: The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate (Oxford University Press, 2001), Ch. 4
In the case of Indo-European it is certain that there was no such unitary language which can be reached by means of comparison… the Indo-European that we can reach by this means was already deeply split up into a series of varying dialects.
Burrow T. 1973. The Sanskrit Language (1955 rev ed) London, Faber. page 11. [2]. Quoted in Kazanas, N. (2009). Indo-Aryan origins and other Vedic issues. Chapter 9
What has always filled me with wonder is the assurance with which many historical linguists assign a date to their reconstructed proto-language. . . . We are told that proto-Indo- European was spoken about 6,000 years ago. What is know with a fair degree of certainty is the time between proto-Indo-Aryan and the modern Inclo-Aryan languages—something in the order of 3,000 years. But how can anyone tell that the development from proto- Indo-European to proto-Indo-Aryan took another 3,000 years? . . . Languages are known to change at different rates. There is no way of knowing how long it took to go from the presumed homogeneity of proto-Indo-European to the linguistic diversity of proto-Indo- Iranian, proto-Celtic, proto-Germanic, etc. The changes could have been rapid or slow. We simply don't know. . . .Why couldn't proto-lndo-European have been spoken about 10,500 years ago? . . . The received opinion of a date of around 6000 BP for proto-Indo- European . . . is an ingrained one. I have found this a difficult matter to get specialists to even discuss. Yet it does seem to be a house of cards. (47-49)
Dixon, R. M. W. 1997. The Rise and Fall of Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. quoted in Bryant, E. F. (2001). The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture : the Indo-Aryan migration debate. Oxford University Press. chapter 12
To be sure, neither Jones nor anyone else was wrong to perceive strong and systematic similarities among Sanskrit, Latin, Greek, and the rest. The question is what one makes of these similarities, and one steps onto a slippery slope whenever analysis moves from the descriptive to the historic plane of linguistics. In specific, reconstructing a "protolanguage" is an exercise that invites one to imagine speakers of that protolanguage, a community of such people, then a place for that community, a time in history, distinguishing characteristics, and a set of contrastive relations with other protocommunities where other protolanguages were spoken. For all of this, need it be said, there is no sound evidentiary warrant.
Lincoln, B. (1999). Theorizing myth: Narrative, ideology, and scholarship. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. p.95
It now strikes me that the attempt to reconstruct a prototypical (“Proto- Indo-European") form from which all attested variants can ultimately be derived may actually obscure much of what is most fascinating and important in myth. For while this stance acknowledges that the contents of a given myth will vary as it is recounted by different persons over time and across space, such variation is treated as a problem—or better, as the problem—to be undone by scholarly research: research that takes as its task the restoration of some hypothetical “original." Such research aims, in effect, to reverse historic processes and recapture a primordial (and ahistoric) moment of unity, harmony, and univocal perfection. In its very presuppositions, such research—it now seems to me—is itself a species of myth and ritual, based upon a romantic "nostalgia for paradise," to cite Mircea Eliades famous formulation.
Bruce Lincoln 1991, Death, War, and Sacrifice: Studies in Ideology and Practice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991. quoted in Arvidsson, Stefan (2006), Aryan Idols: Indo-European Mythology as Ideology and Science, translated by Sonia Wichmann, Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press. pp (303)
No reputable linguist pretends that Proto-Indo-European reconstructions represent a reality, and the unpronounceability of the asterisked formulae is not a legitimate argument against reconstruction.
Ernst Pulgram, quoted by Jean-Paul Demoule, The Indo-Europeans: Archaeology, Language, Race, and the Search for the Origins of the West (2023)
We now find ourselves in possession of two entirely different items, both of which we call Proto-Indo-European: one, a set of reconstructed formulae not representative of any reality; the other, an undiscovered (possibly undiscoverable) language of whose reality we may be certain.
Pulgram, E. 1959. "Proto-Indo-European Reality and Reconstruction." Language 35:421-426. quoted in Bryant, E. F. (2001). The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture : the Indo-Aryan migration debate. Oxford University Press. ch 4
Arguing about 'Proto-Indo-European' can be meaningful and fruitful . . . if we always explain whether we are talking about the one or the other— which, as we well know, we do not do.
Pulgram, E. 1959. "Proto-Indo-European Reality and Reconstruction." Language 35:421-426. quoted in Bryant, E. F. (2001). The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture : the Indo-Aryan migration debate. Oxford University Press. ch 4
It is an elementary mistake to equate common Indo-European words with Proto-Indo- European words and to base thereon conclusions concerning the Proto-European Urvolk or Urheimat. Yet this is precisely what has often been done. . . . impassioned linguistic palaeontologists have gone even further. From the existence of certain items of vocabulary in all or a majority of the extant Indo-European languages, and blandly ignoring all the pitfalls just noted, they even fabricated conclusions concerning the social organization, the religion, the mores, the race of the Proto-Indo-European.
Pulgram, E. 1958. The Tongues of Italy. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. pp. 145-146. Quoted in Bryant, E. F. (2001). The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture : the Indo-Aryan migration debate. Oxford University Press.
A sheep that had no wool saw horses, one of them pulling a heavy wagon, one carrying a big load, and one carrying a man quickly. The sheep said to the horses: "My heart pains me, seeing a man driving horses." The horses said: "Listen, sheep, our hearts pain us when we see this: a man, the master, makes the wool of the sheep into a warm garment for himself. And the sheep has no wool." Having heard this, the sheep fled into the plain.
August Schleicher, «Eine fabel in indogermanischer ursprache», Beiträge zur vergleichenden Sprachforschung auf dem Gebiete der arischen, celtischen und slawischen Sprachen, ed. A. von Kuhn and A. Schleicher, Vol. 5. (Berlin, 1868), pp. 206–8; translated by R. S. P. Beekes, Comparative Indo-European Linguistics: An introduction, 2nd ed. (2011), p. 287
It must be stressed, and cannot be said often enough, that whatever date is given for 'PIE,' it is necessarily no more than pure speculation.
Zimmer, Stefan. 1988. "On Dating Indo-European: A Call for Honesty." Journal of Indo-European Studies 16:371-375. 372-5 Zimmer (1988), quoted in Bryant, E. F. (2001). The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture : the Indo-Aryan migration debate. Oxford University Press. chapter 12
Every attempt, then, to give absolute dates for 'Proto-Indo-European' (or dates for alleged different stages of'PIE') is either based on the speculative identification of an archaeological culture with the speakers of the 'language of the PIE's' or on what may be called 'intelligent guesses,' deliberations of probability and feelings of appropriateness... The first type of proposal is usually contested by fellow archaeologists and doubted by linguists, the second, being purely subjective because objective arguments simply do not exist, is bound to remain noncommittal. As is easily to be seen, many dates of both types have found their way to an often far too skeptical public.
Zimmer, Stefan. 1988. "On Dating Indo-European: A Call for Honesty." Journal of Indo-European Studies 16:371-375. 372-5 Zimmer (1988), quoted in Bryant, E. F. (2001). The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture : the Indo-Aryan migration debate. Oxford University Press. chapter 12
It is therefore historically irresponsible for the linguist to speak of 'Proto-Indo-European' in the 4th millennium, and linguistically meaningless for the archaeologist to argue about 'Proto-Indo-Europeans' living somewhere before ca 2500 B.C.
Zimmer, Stefan. 1988. "On Dating Indo-European: A Call for Honesty." Journal of Indo-European Studies 16:371-375. 372-5 Zimmer (1988), quoted in Bryant, E. F. (2001). The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture : the Indo-Aryan migration debate. Oxford University Press. chapter 12
