Schleicher's Fable: A Reconstruction of the Proto-Indo-European Language
Illustration by Dimosthenis Vasiloudis
Schleicher's fable serves as an excellent example of the efforts made by linguists to reconstruct the Proto-Indo-European (PIE) language. It was created in 1868 by August Schleicher, who was the first to compose a text in PIE to demonstrate what this proto-language might have sounded like. The fable is titled "Avis akvāsas ka" ("The Sheep and the Horses") and has since undergone numerous revisions and adaptations by various linguists as our understanding of PIE has evolved. The different versions of the fable represent not only the various interpretations of the proto-language but also provide an opportunity to trace the evolution of ideas and theories about the character and structure of PIE over the centuries.
The History of Reconstruction
Through his work, Schleicher aimed to depict the Proto-Indo-European language as it was understood in the 19th century. This language no longer exists in any living form, and his work represents an attempt to reconstruct it through comparisons and studies of linguistic data from various Indo-European languages, such as Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, and other ancient tongues. His initial attempt was revolutionary for its time, as it laid the foundations for the reconstruction of the proto-language by proposing specific phonological and morphological rules.
The original version of Schleicher's fable tells a brief story where a sheep converses with two horses, discussing the state of human society. The interest in this composition lies not so much in the narrative itself but in the attempt to capture the linguistic form of PIE based on the data available at that time.
Revisions of the Fable
After Schleicher’s initial publication, several other linguists undertook the task of revising and adapting the fable as our understanding of PIE continued to progress. Some of the most notable revisions include:
Hermann Hirt (1939): Hirt published the first significant revision of the fable, adding new phonological and grammatical details that emerged from recent linguistic discoveries. His version presented more complex and precise sounds, reflecting the advancements in understanding the linguistic rules of PIE.
Winfred Lehmann and Ladislav Zgusta (1979): The work of Lehmann and Zgusta introduced innovations in morphology and syntax, incorporating more accurate rules concerning word roots and suffixes. Their version contributed to a better understanding of how PIE diversified into various language families.
Douglas Q. Adams (1997): Adams' version, published in the "Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture," introduced new theories about phonetic shifts and the evolution of vowels. His work presented a version of PIE more faithful to the complex phonological reality emerging from comparisons with modern Indo-European languages.
Frederik Kortlandt (2007): The most recent revision by Kortlandt integrated the latest theories on PIE phonology and grammar, utilizing newer linguistic methods and data. His version marked a significant step forward in understanding the dynamic evolution of PIE, including details on phonetic development and the use of prepositions.
Illustration by Dimosthenis Vasiloudis
The Sheep and the Horses
Avis akvāsas ka.
Avis, jasmin varnā na ā ast, dadarka akvams, tam, vāgham garum vaghantam, tam, bhāram magham, tam, manum āku bharantam. Avis akvabhjams ā vavakat: kard aghnutai mai vidanti manum akvams agantam.
Akvāsas ā vavakant: krudhi avai, kard aghnutai vividvant-svas: manus patis varnām avisāms karnauti svabhjam gharmam vastram avibhjams ka varnā na asti.
Tat kukruvants avis agram ā bhugat.
English translation:
The Sheep and the Horses
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.
Hirt (1939)
Owis ek'wōses-kʷe
Owis, jesmin wᵇlənā ne ēst, dedork'e ek'wons, tom, woghom gʷᵇrum weghontm̥, tom, bhorom megam, tom, gh'ьmonm̥ ōk'u bherontm̥. Owis ek'womos ewьwekʷet: k'ērd aghnutai moi widontei gh'ᵇmonm̥ ek’wons ag'ontm̥. Ek'wōses ewᵇwekʷont: kl'udhi, owei!, k'ērd aghnutai widontmos: gh'ᵇmo, potis, wᵇlənām owjôm kʷr̥neuti sebhoi ghʷermom westrom; owimos-kʷe wᵇlənā ne esti. Tod k'ek'ruwos owis ag'rom ebhuget.
Lehmann and Zgusta (1979)
Owis eḱwōskʷe
Gʷərēi owis, kʷesjo wl̥hnā ne ēst, ek̂wōns espek̂et, oinom ghe gʷr̥um woĝhom weĝhontm̥, oinomkʷe meǵam bhorom, oinomkʷe ĝhm̥enm̥ ōk̂u bherontm̥.
Owis nu ek̂wobh(y)os (ek̂womos) ewewkʷet: "k̂ēr aghnutoi moi ek̂wōns aĝontm̥ nerm̥ widn̥tei".
Eḱwōs tu ewewkʷont: "k̂ludhi, owei, k̂ēr ghe aghnutoi n̥smei widn̥tbh(y)os (widn̥tmos): nēr, potis, owiōm r̥ wl̥hnām sebhi gʷhermom westrom kʷrn̥euti. Neǵhi owiōm wl̥hnā esti".
Tod k̂ek̂luwōs owis aĝrom ebhuget.
Danka (1986)
Owis ek'woi kʷe
Owis, jesmin wl̥nā ne ēst, dedork'e ek'wons woghom gʷr̥um weghontn̥s - bhorom meg'əm, monum ōk'u bherontn̥s. Owis ek'wobhos eweukʷet: K'erd aghnutai moi widn̥tei g'hm̥onm̥ ek'wons ag'ontm̥. Ek'woi eweukʷont: K'ludhi, owi, k'erd aghnutai dedr̥k'usbhos: monus potis wl̥nām owiōm temneti: sebhei ghʷermom westrom - owibhos kʷe wl̥nā ne esti. Tod k'ek'luwōs owis ag'rom ebhuget.
Adams (1997)
H₂óu̯is h₁ék̂u̯ōs-kʷe
Gʷr̥hₓḗi h₂óu̯is, kʷési̯o u̯lh₂néh₄ ne (h₁é) est, h₁ék̂u̯ons spék̂et, h₁oinom ghe gʷr̥hₓúm u̯óĝhom u̯éĝhontm̥ h₁oinom-kʷe méĝhₐm bhórom, h₁oinom-kʷe ĝhménm̥ hₓṓk̂u bhérontm̥. h₂óu̯is tu h₁ek̂u̯oibh(i̯)os u̯eukʷét: 'k̂ḗr hₐeghnutór moi h₁ék̂u̯ons hₐéĝontm̥ hₐnérm̥ u̯idn̥téi. h₁ék̂u̯ōs tu u̯eukʷónt: 'k̂ludhí, h₂óu̯ei, k̂ḗr ghe hₐeghnutór n̥sméi u̯idn̥tbh(i̯)ós. hₐnḗr, pótis, h₂éu̯i̯om r̥ u̯l̥h₂néhₐm sebhi kʷr̥néuti nu gʷhérmom u̯éstrom néĝhi h₂éu̯i̯om u̯l̥h₂néhₐ h₁ésti.' Tód k̂ek̂luu̯ṓs h₂óu̯is hₐéĝrom bhugét.
Lühr (2008)
h₂ówis h₁ék’wōskʷe
h₂ówis, (H)jésmin h₂wlh₂néh₂ ne éh₁est, dedork'e (h₁)ék'wons, tóm, wóg'ʰom gʷérh₂um wég'ʰontm, tóm, bʰórom még'oh₂m, tóm, dʰg'ʰémonm h₂oHk'ú bʰérontm. h₂ówis (h₁)ék'wobʰos ewewkʷe(t): k'ḗrd h₂gʰnutoj moj widntéj dʰg'ʰmónm (h₁)ék'wons h₂ég'ontm. (h₁)ék'wōs ewewkʷ: k'ludʰí, h₂ówi! k'ḗrd h₂gʰnutoj widntbʰós: dʰg'ʰémō(n), pótis, h₂wlnéh₂m h₂ówjom kʷnewti sébʰoj gʷʰérmom wéstrom; h₂éwibʰoskʷe h₂wlh₂néh₂ né h₁esti. Tód k'ek'luwṓs h₂ówis h₂ég'rom ebʰuge(t).
Voyles and Barrack (2009)
Owis eḱwōs kʷe
Owis, jāi wl̥nā ne eest, dedorḱe eḱwons, tom woǵʰom gʷr̥um weǵʰontm̥, tom bʰorom meǵm̥, tom ǵʰm̥onm̥ ōku bʰerontm̥. Owis eḱwobʰjos eweket: "Ḱerd angʰetai moi widontei ǵʰm̥onm̥ eḱwons aǵontm̥". Eḱwos wewekur: "Ḱludʰe, owei! Ḱerd angʰetai widontbʰjos: ǵʰm̥on, potis, wl̥nam owijōm kʷr̥neti soi gʷʰermom westrom; owibʰjos kʷe wl̥nā ne esti". Tod ḱeḱlōts owis aǵrom ebʰuget.
Melchert (2009, revised 2014)
H₂ówis (h₁)ék̂wōs-kʷe
h₂áwej h₁josméj h₂wl̥h₁náh₂ né h₁ést, só h₁ék̂woms derk̂t. só gʷr̥hₓúm wóĝhom wéĝhet; só méĝh₂m̥ bhórom; só (dh)gĥémonm̥ h₂ṓk̂u bhéret. h₂ówis h₁ék̂wojbh(j)os wéwk(ʷ)et: (dh)ĝhémonm̥ spék̂joh₂ h₁ék̂woms h₁jós h₂áĝeti, k̂ḗr moj aghnutór. h₁ék̂wōs tu wéwkʷont: k̂ludhí, h₂owei! tód spék̂jomes/n, n̥sméi aghnutór k̂ḗr: (dh)ĝhémō pótis sē h₂áwjōm h₂wl̥h₁nā́h₁ gʷhérmom wéstrom (h₁)wébht, h₂áwibh(j)os tu h₂wl̥h₁náh₂ né h₁ésti. tód k̂ek̂luwṓs h₂ówis h₂aĝróm bhugét.
Kortlandt (2007, revised 2010)
ʕʷeuis ʔiḱ:ueskʷ:e
ʕʷeuis i ʕueli nēʔst ʔeḱ:ums uēit:, t:o kʷ'rʕeum uoḱom uḱent:m, t:o mḱ'eʕm porom, t:o tḱmenm ʔoʔḱ:u prent:m. uēuk:t ʕʷeuis ʔiḱ:uos, ʕetḱo ʔme ḱ:ērt ʕnerm uit'ent:i ʔeḱ:ums ʕḱ'ent:m. ueuk:nt: ʔiḱ:ues, ḱ:luti ʕʷue, ʕetḱo nsme ḱ:ērt: uit'ent:i, ʕnēr p:ot:is ʕʷuiom ʕueli sue kʷermom uesti kʷ:rneut:i, ʕʷuēi kʷ:e ʕueli neʔsti. t:o ḱ:eḱ:luus ʕʷeuis pleʕnom pēuk't.
After the separation of Anatolian and Tocharian:
ʕʷeuis ioi ʕulʔneʕ nēʔs ʔeḱuns ʔe uēi'd, tom 'gʷrʕeum uoǵom ueǵontm, tom m'ǵeʕm borom, tom dǵmenm ʔoʔḱu berontm. ʔe uēuk ʕʷeuis ʔeḱumus, ʕedǵo ʔmoi ḱēr'd ʕnerm ui'denti ʔeḱuns ʕe'ǵontm. ʔe ueukn'd ʔiḱues, ḱludi ʕʷuei, ʕedǵo nsmi ḱēr'd ui'denti, ʕnēr potis ʕʷuiom ʕulʔneʕm subi gʷermom uesti kʷrneuti, ʕʷuimus kʷe ʕulʔneʕ neʔsti. to'd ḱeḱluus ʕʷeuis pleʕnom bēu'g.
Byrd (2013)
H₂óu̯is h₁éḱu̯ōs-kʷe
h₂áu̯ei̯ h₁i̯osméi̯ h₂u̯l̥h₁náh₂ né h₁ést, só h₁éḱu̯oms derḱt. só gʷr̥hₓúm u̯óǵʰom u̯eǵʰed; só méǵh₂m̥ bʰórom; só dʰǵʰémonm̥ h₂ṓḱu bʰered. h₂óu̯is h₁ékʷoi̯bʰi̯os u̯eu̯ked: "dʰǵʰémonm̥ spéḱi̯oh₂ h₁éḱu̯oms-kʷe h₂áǵeti, ḱḗr moi̯ agʰnutor". h₁éḱu̯ōs tu u̯eu̯kond: "ḱludʰí, h₂ou̯ei̯! tód spéḱi̯omes, n̥sméi̯ agʰnutór ḱḗr: dʰǵʰémō, pótis, sē h₂áu̯i̯es h₂u̯l̥h₁náh₂ gʷʰérmom u̯éstrom u̯ept, h₂áu̯ibʰi̯os tu h₂u̯l̥h₁náh₂ né h₁esti". tód ḱeḱluu̯ṓs h₂óu̯is h₂aǵróm bʰuged.
The Significance of Reconstructions
The reconstructions of PIE through Schleicher's fable should not be regarded as precise renditions of the original language. Instead, they represent an approximation to historical truth, a form of "plausible" approach, as Boeckh points out. Reconstructions are based on hypotheses and conclusions drawn from the study of descendant languages of PIE, and they provide an algebraic depiction of the linguistic system, though not entirely accurate.
As Delbrück notes, the PIE reconstructed through such texts is not a real language that was once spoken but rather a "typical expression" of the evolving views of researchers. The differences among the versions of the fable reflect the evolution of linguistic thought: as methods improve and data increase, the picture we form of PIE becomes clearer and closer to historical reality.
Schleicher's fable is a fascinating linguistic exercise that reveals the complexity of reconstructing a lost language. These efforts are undoubtedly theoretical, yet they have the potential to offer a realistic depiction of the proto-language through detailed analysis and comparison. The process of reconstruction is evidence of how science can use past data to construct images of a historical world that no longer exists, and Schleicher's fable is a perfect example of this ongoing effort by linguists.
Schleicher's fable continues to be refined, demonstrating that linguistics is not static but constantly evolving, shaping new approaches to understand the earliest phase of languages spoken by the ancestors of cultures throughout Eurasia.