Proto-Indo-European (PIE) words with IPAWhat's weird about Proto-Indo-European Stops?Cellar door and Indo-European languagesDictionary with real IPA and English sandhi rules?Spelling of laryngeals in Proto-Indo-EuropeanChart with audible sounds pronounced, for Proto-Indo-European?Are there any sources that provide accurate IPA transcriptions for Danish?(PIE) déḱm̥ vs déḱm̥t (ten)IPA to plain simple English translatorSystem for intermixing IPA with OrthographyIs wikipedia wrong when it speaks of the hebrew shwa not being pronounced ə?If *h1 were a glottal stop, and virtually all German word initial vowels have an implicit glottal stop

Is it a problem that pull requests are approved without any comments

What is in `tex.print` or `tex.sprint`?

How do I write "Show, Don't Tell" as an Asperger?

Did Darth Vader wear the same suit for 20+ years?

PhD student with mental health issues and bad performance

Bent spoke design wheels — feasible?

Should I "tell" my exposition or give it through dialogue?

What do we gain with higher order logics?

Can a 2nd-level sorcerer use sorcery points to create a 2nd-level spell slot?

Can a magnetic field of an object be stronger than its gravity?

In this example, which path would a monster affected by the Dissonant Whispers spell take?

Finding row wise sum of transpose of hv-convex binary matrix

Is it legal in the UK for politicians to lie to the public for political gain?

How to generate random points without duplication?

Why is the relationship between frequency and pitch exponential?

Building a road to escape Earth's gravity by making a pyramid on Antartica

How were concentration and extermination camp guards recruited?

What happened to all the nuclear material being smuggled after the fall of the USSR?

What's the logic behind the the organization of Hamburg's bus transport into "rings"?

Is it possible to trip with natural weapon?

Avoiding cliches when writing gods

Are the AT-AT's from "Empire Strikes Back" a deliberate reference to Mecha?

Does the growth of home value benefit from compound interest?

C SIGINT signal in Linux



Proto-Indo-European (PIE) words with IPA


What's weird about Proto-Indo-European Stops?Cellar door and Indo-European languagesDictionary with real IPA and English sandhi rules?Spelling of laryngeals in Proto-Indo-EuropeanChart with audible sounds pronounced, for Proto-Indo-European?Are there any sources that provide accurate IPA transcriptions for Danish?(PIE) déḱm̥ vs déḱm̥t (ten)IPA to plain simple English translatorSystem for intermixing IPA with OrthographyIs wikipedia wrong when it speaks of the hebrew shwa not being pronounced ə?If *h1 were a glottal stop, and virtually all German word initial vowels have an implicit glottal stop













3















Are there any resources that can show IPA pronounciation for each PIE word? Either with laryngeals or without laryngeals?



Wikitionary gives me only small list Category:Proto-Indo-European terms with IPA pronunciation, where:



*bʰréh₂tēr is [b̤ráx.tɛːr], *h₂éwis is [xáwis], *méh₂tēr is [máx.tɛːr], *nisdós is [niz.dós], and
*pénkʷe is pronounced [péŋ⁽ʷ⁾.kʷe].



So, since Wikitionary can give me only six words with IPA, are there any resources that can give me larger word lists with IPA?










share|improve this question






















  • I am arriving too late, but are there any person or user(either inside or outside StackExchange) that can help find me any PIE word pronounciation resource? Draconis haven't found yet, and Wikitionary list is too small for me.

    – Rock
    12 hours ago











  • Also, Draconis puts their own guess inside this website, without posting any link , where I can view, how Draconis IPA guess look like. So, if you think, that your own guess is good, link to your own guess website or document or PDF instead of posting your own guess in this website.

    – Rock
    12 hours ago















3















Are there any resources that can show IPA pronounciation for each PIE word? Either with laryngeals or without laryngeals?



Wikitionary gives me only small list Category:Proto-Indo-European terms with IPA pronunciation, where:



*bʰréh₂tēr is [b̤ráx.tɛːr], *h₂éwis is [xáwis], *méh₂tēr is [máx.tɛːr], *nisdós is [niz.dós], and
*pénkʷe is pronounced [péŋ⁽ʷ⁾.kʷe].



So, since Wikitionary can give me only six words with IPA, are there any resources that can give me larger word lists with IPA?










share|improve this question






















  • I am arriving too late, but are there any person or user(either inside or outside StackExchange) that can help find me any PIE word pronounciation resource? Draconis haven't found yet, and Wikitionary list is too small for me.

    – Rock
    12 hours ago











  • Also, Draconis puts their own guess inside this website, without posting any link , where I can view, how Draconis IPA guess look like. So, if you think, that your own guess is good, link to your own guess website or document or PDF instead of posting your own guess in this website.

    – Rock
    12 hours ago













3












3








3








Are there any resources that can show IPA pronounciation for each PIE word? Either with laryngeals or without laryngeals?



Wikitionary gives me only small list Category:Proto-Indo-European terms with IPA pronunciation, where:



*bʰréh₂tēr is [b̤ráx.tɛːr], *h₂éwis is [xáwis], *méh₂tēr is [máx.tɛːr], *nisdós is [niz.dós], and
*pénkʷe is pronounced [péŋ⁽ʷ⁾.kʷe].



So, since Wikitionary can give me only six words with IPA, are there any resources that can give me larger word lists with IPA?










share|improve this question














Are there any resources that can show IPA pronounciation for each PIE word? Either with laryngeals or without laryngeals?



Wikitionary gives me only small list Category:Proto-Indo-European terms with IPA pronunciation, where:



*bʰréh₂tēr is [b̤ráx.tɛːr], *h₂éwis is [xáwis], *méh₂tēr is [máx.tɛːr], *nisdós is [niz.dós], and
*pénkʷe is pronounced [péŋ⁽ʷ⁾.kʷe].



So, since Wikitionary can give me only six words with IPA, are there any resources that can give me larger word lists with IPA?







ipa pronunciation proto-indo-european resource-request






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked May 19 at 9:52









RockRock

1297




1297












  • I am arriving too late, but are there any person or user(either inside or outside StackExchange) that can help find me any PIE word pronounciation resource? Draconis haven't found yet, and Wikitionary list is too small for me.

    – Rock
    12 hours ago











  • Also, Draconis puts their own guess inside this website, without posting any link , where I can view, how Draconis IPA guess look like. So, if you think, that your own guess is good, link to your own guess website or document or PDF instead of posting your own guess in this website.

    – Rock
    12 hours ago

















  • I am arriving too late, but are there any person or user(either inside or outside StackExchange) that can help find me any PIE word pronounciation resource? Draconis haven't found yet, and Wikitionary list is too small for me.

    – Rock
    12 hours ago











  • Also, Draconis puts their own guess inside this website, without posting any link , where I can view, how Draconis IPA guess look like. So, if you think, that your own guess is good, link to your own guess website or document or PDF instead of posting your own guess in this website.

    – Rock
    12 hours ago
















I am arriving too late, but are there any person or user(either inside or outside StackExchange) that can help find me any PIE word pronounciation resource? Draconis haven't found yet, and Wikitionary list is too small for me.

– Rock
12 hours ago





I am arriving too late, but are there any person or user(either inside or outside StackExchange) that can help find me any PIE word pronounciation resource? Draconis haven't found yet, and Wikitionary list is too small for me.

– Rock
12 hours ago













Also, Draconis puts their own guess inside this website, without posting any link , where I can view, how Draconis IPA guess look like. So, if you think, that your own guess is good, link to your own guess website or document or PDF instead of posting your own guess in this website.

– Rock
12 hours ago





Also, Draconis puts their own guess inside this website, without posting any link , where I can view, how Draconis IPA guess look like. So, if you think, that your own guess is good, link to your own guess website or document or PDF instead of posting your own guess in this website.

– Rock
12 hours ago










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















12














The problem is, nobody is quite sure how PIE was pronounced!



When we talk about PIE phonemes like /*d/, we don't mean it was actually IPA [d]. We mean that "there seems to have been a phoneme, which is pronounced [d] in a lot of descendant languages". But there are also many languages which don't pronounce it [d]: Germanic, Anatolian (an extremely conservative branch), Armenian, and Tocharian all have [t] there. So there's a theory that /*d/ was actually [t'], an ejective, which makes certain weirdnesses in PIE a whole lot less weird. (Look into the "glottalic theory" for more details; there's some info in this question's answers too.)



Similarly, PIE has two "velar" series, the ones marked with accents (/*ḱ/) and the ones without (/*k/). It's clear that there was a difference between these series, because they act differently in the satem languages, but there's very little agreement on what the difference actually was. Personally, I like the theory that /*ḱ/ was velar ([k]) and /*k/ was uvular ([q]), but you can find a great number of linguists who would vehemently disagree with me. In particular, if you don't accept the glottalic theory, the uvular theory makes the weird consonant system even weirder, requiring sounds that aren't attested in any language in the world.



On the plus side, there are only two (maybe three) phonetic rules reconstructed for PIE that aren't represented in written-out reconstructions:




  • /*e/ next to /*h₂/ becomes [a]


  • /*e/ next to /*h₃/ becomes [o]

And sometimes (depending on reconstruction):



  • Consonant clusters assimilate in voicing, and nasals assimilate in place

That change definitely happened at some point, there's solid evidence for that, but it's unclear if it should be called a part of PIE or a later change.



So if you want to turn a PIE word into IPA, the process is straightforward:



  • Decide which pronunciation you want for each reconstructed phoneme

  • Map each phoneme onto its chosen pronunciation

  • Apply the two (or three) sound changes

And you're done! But note that this pronunciation is very definitely not accurate to what the actual early Indo-Europeans would have used: that's the problem with using reconstructions. There's just too much detail that's been lost over the millennia. (In particular, there were certainly more phonetic changes than the three I listed—we just don't have enough evidence to reconstruct others with any certainty.)



Here's my personal guess as to pronunciations:



chart of phonemes



But it must be emphasized that this is only a guess: an educated guess, sure, but there's just not enough evidence to call it a "theory", and given the lack of evidence, it's not really falsifiable. Other linguists here can probably give you a dozen other reconstructions that differ from mine. That said—while this guess isn't better than any other, it's also not really worse than any other. So depending on your purposes, that might be enough.






share|improve this answer




















  • 1





    @vectory I'd say the reconstruction does show what phonemes there are…but as you say, it misses out on the hundreds of phonetic details every language has, like the English glottal stop. Which is why, alas, we can never really have any sort of "accurate" Proto-Indo-European pronunciation.

    – Draconis
    May 19 at 19:10






  • 1





    (That said, why do you say it's off-topic? OP asked for PIE words in IPA, and I'm explaining why they can't find that anywhere—there's simply not enough info available to do more than guess at the actual pronunciation.)

    – Draconis
    May 19 at 19:10






  • 3





    @Rock Unfortunately, to my knowledge, such a resource does not exist (because the actual pronunciation is still unknown).

    – Draconis
    May 19 at 19:38






  • 3





    @Rock Wiktionary is making a guess (or, rather, Ringe (2006) is making a guess), but it's still no better than guessing. I'm not sure why those particular pages have phonetics given, but imo it's a mistake to list guessed phonetics alongside the far more solid information like the declension table.

    – Draconis
    May 19 at 20:04






  • 2





    Wiktionary as well as this answer are trying "to scratch an itch", but of course any dilligent guardian will tell that scratching may worsen the symptoms.

    – vectory
    May 19 at 20:24












Your Answer








StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "312"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);













draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flinguistics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f31496%2fproto-indo-european-pie-words-with-ipa%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









12














The problem is, nobody is quite sure how PIE was pronounced!



When we talk about PIE phonemes like /*d/, we don't mean it was actually IPA [d]. We mean that "there seems to have been a phoneme, which is pronounced [d] in a lot of descendant languages". But there are also many languages which don't pronounce it [d]: Germanic, Anatolian (an extremely conservative branch), Armenian, and Tocharian all have [t] there. So there's a theory that /*d/ was actually [t'], an ejective, which makes certain weirdnesses in PIE a whole lot less weird. (Look into the "glottalic theory" for more details; there's some info in this question's answers too.)



Similarly, PIE has two "velar" series, the ones marked with accents (/*ḱ/) and the ones without (/*k/). It's clear that there was a difference between these series, because they act differently in the satem languages, but there's very little agreement on what the difference actually was. Personally, I like the theory that /*ḱ/ was velar ([k]) and /*k/ was uvular ([q]), but you can find a great number of linguists who would vehemently disagree with me. In particular, if you don't accept the glottalic theory, the uvular theory makes the weird consonant system even weirder, requiring sounds that aren't attested in any language in the world.



On the plus side, there are only two (maybe three) phonetic rules reconstructed for PIE that aren't represented in written-out reconstructions:




  • /*e/ next to /*h₂/ becomes [a]


  • /*e/ next to /*h₃/ becomes [o]

And sometimes (depending on reconstruction):



  • Consonant clusters assimilate in voicing, and nasals assimilate in place

That change definitely happened at some point, there's solid evidence for that, but it's unclear if it should be called a part of PIE or a later change.



So if you want to turn a PIE word into IPA, the process is straightforward:



  • Decide which pronunciation you want for each reconstructed phoneme

  • Map each phoneme onto its chosen pronunciation

  • Apply the two (or three) sound changes

And you're done! But note that this pronunciation is very definitely not accurate to what the actual early Indo-Europeans would have used: that's the problem with using reconstructions. There's just too much detail that's been lost over the millennia. (In particular, there were certainly more phonetic changes than the three I listed—we just don't have enough evidence to reconstruct others with any certainty.)



Here's my personal guess as to pronunciations:



chart of phonemes



But it must be emphasized that this is only a guess: an educated guess, sure, but there's just not enough evidence to call it a "theory", and given the lack of evidence, it's not really falsifiable. Other linguists here can probably give you a dozen other reconstructions that differ from mine. That said—while this guess isn't better than any other, it's also not really worse than any other. So depending on your purposes, that might be enough.






share|improve this answer




















  • 1





    @vectory I'd say the reconstruction does show what phonemes there are…but as you say, it misses out on the hundreds of phonetic details every language has, like the English glottal stop. Which is why, alas, we can never really have any sort of "accurate" Proto-Indo-European pronunciation.

    – Draconis
    May 19 at 19:10






  • 1





    (That said, why do you say it's off-topic? OP asked for PIE words in IPA, and I'm explaining why they can't find that anywhere—there's simply not enough info available to do more than guess at the actual pronunciation.)

    – Draconis
    May 19 at 19:10






  • 3





    @Rock Unfortunately, to my knowledge, such a resource does not exist (because the actual pronunciation is still unknown).

    – Draconis
    May 19 at 19:38






  • 3





    @Rock Wiktionary is making a guess (or, rather, Ringe (2006) is making a guess), but it's still no better than guessing. I'm not sure why those particular pages have phonetics given, but imo it's a mistake to list guessed phonetics alongside the far more solid information like the declension table.

    – Draconis
    May 19 at 20:04






  • 2





    Wiktionary as well as this answer are trying "to scratch an itch", but of course any dilligent guardian will tell that scratching may worsen the symptoms.

    – vectory
    May 19 at 20:24
















12














The problem is, nobody is quite sure how PIE was pronounced!



When we talk about PIE phonemes like /*d/, we don't mean it was actually IPA [d]. We mean that "there seems to have been a phoneme, which is pronounced [d] in a lot of descendant languages". But there are also many languages which don't pronounce it [d]: Germanic, Anatolian (an extremely conservative branch), Armenian, and Tocharian all have [t] there. So there's a theory that /*d/ was actually [t'], an ejective, which makes certain weirdnesses in PIE a whole lot less weird. (Look into the "glottalic theory" for more details; there's some info in this question's answers too.)



Similarly, PIE has two "velar" series, the ones marked with accents (/*ḱ/) and the ones without (/*k/). It's clear that there was a difference between these series, because they act differently in the satem languages, but there's very little agreement on what the difference actually was. Personally, I like the theory that /*ḱ/ was velar ([k]) and /*k/ was uvular ([q]), but you can find a great number of linguists who would vehemently disagree with me. In particular, if you don't accept the glottalic theory, the uvular theory makes the weird consonant system even weirder, requiring sounds that aren't attested in any language in the world.



On the plus side, there are only two (maybe three) phonetic rules reconstructed for PIE that aren't represented in written-out reconstructions:




  • /*e/ next to /*h₂/ becomes [a]


  • /*e/ next to /*h₃/ becomes [o]

And sometimes (depending on reconstruction):



  • Consonant clusters assimilate in voicing, and nasals assimilate in place

That change definitely happened at some point, there's solid evidence for that, but it's unclear if it should be called a part of PIE or a later change.



So if you want to turn a PIE word into IPA, the process is straightforward:



  • Decide which pronunciation you want for each reconstructed phoneme

  • Map each phoneme onto its chosen pronunciation

  • Apply the two (or three) sound changes

And you're done! But note that this pronunciation is very definitely not accurate to what the actual early Indo-Europeans would have used: that's the problem with using reconstructions. There's just too much detail that's been lost over the millennia. (In particular, there were certainly more phonetic changes than the three I listed—we just don't have enough evidence to reconstruct others with any certainty.)



Here's my personal guess as to pronunciations:



chart of phonemes



But it must be emphasized that this is only a guess: an educated guess, sure, but there's just not enough evidence to call it a "theory", and given the lack of evidence, it's not really falsifiable. Other linguists here can probably give you a dozen other reconstructions that differ from mine. That said—while this guess isn't better than any other, it's also not really worse than any other. So depending on your purposes, that might be enough.






share|improve this answer




















  • 1





    @vectory I'd say the reconstruction does show what phonemes there are…but as you say, it misses out on the hundreds of phonetic details every language has, like the English glottal stop. Which is why, alas, we can never really have any sort of "accurate" Proto-Indo-European pronunciation.

    – Draconis
    May 19 at 19:10






  • 1





    (That said, why do you say it's off-topic? OP asked for PIE words in IPA, and I'm explaining why they can't find that anywhere—there's simply not enough info available to do more than guess at the actual pronunciation.)

    – Draconis
    May 19 at 19:10






  • 3





    @Rock Unfortunately, to my knowledge, such a resource does not exist (because the actual pronunciation is still unknown).

    – Draconis
    May 19 at 19:38






  • 3





    @Rock Wiktionary is making a guess (or, rather, Ringe (2006) is making a guess), but it's still no better than guessing. I'm not sure why those particular pages have phonetics given, but imo it's a mistake to list guessed phonetics alongside the far more solid information like the declension table.

    – Draconis
    May 19 at 20:04






  • 2





    Wiktionary as well as this answer are trying "to scratch an itch", but of course any dilligent guardian will tell that scratching may worsen the symptoms.

    – vectory
    May 19 at 20:24














12












12








12







The problem is, nobody is quite sure how PIE was pronounced!



When we talk about PIE phonemes like /*d/, we don't mean it was actually IPA [d]. We mean that "there seems to have been a phoneme, which is pronounced [d] in a lot of descendant languages". But there are also many languages which don't pronounce it [d]: Germanic, Anatolian (an extremely conservative branch), Armenian, and Tocharian all have [t] there. So there's a theory that /*d/ was actually [t'], an ejective, which makes certain weirdnesses in PIE a whole lot less weird. (Look into the "glottalic theory" for more details; there's some info in this question's answers too.)



Similarly, PIE has two "velar" series, the ones marked with accents (/*ḱ/) and the ones without (/*k/). It's clear that there was a difference between these series, because they act differently in the satem languages, but there's very little agreement on what the difference actually was. Personally, I like the theory that /*ḱ/ was velar ([k]) and /*k/ was uvular ([q]), but you can find a great number of linguists who would vehemently disagree with me. In particular, if you don't accept the glottalic theory, the uvular theory makes the weird consonant system even weirder, requiring sounds that aren't attested in any language in the world.



On the plus side, there are only two (maybe three) phonetic rules reconstructed for PIE that aren't represented in written-out reconstructions:




  • /*e/ next to /*h₂/ becomes [a]


  • /*e/ next to /*h₃/ becomes [o]

And sometimes (depending on reconstruction):



  • Consonant clusters assimilate in voicing, and nasals assimilate in place

That change definitely happened at some point, there's solid evidence for that, but it's unclear if it should be called a part of PIE or a later change.



So if you want to turn a PIE word into IPA, the process is straightforward:



  • Decide which pronunciation you want for each reconstructed phoneme

  • Map each phoneme onto its chosen pronunciation

  • Apply the two (or three) sound changes

And you're done! But note that this pronunciation is very definitely not accurate to what the actual early Indo-Europeans would have used: that's the problem with using reconstructions. There's just too much detail that's been lost over the millennia. (In particular, there were certainly more phonetic changes than the three I listed—we just don't have enough evidence to reconstruct others with any certainty.)



Here's my personal guess as to pronunciations:



chart of phonemes



But it must be emphasized that this is only a guess: an educated guess, sure, but there's just not enough evidence to call it a "theory", and given the lack of evidence, it's not really falsifiable. Other linguists here can probably give you a dozen other reconstructions that differ from mine. That said—while this guess isn't better than any other, it's also not really worse than any other. So depending on your purposes, that might be enough.






share|improve this answer















The problem is, nobody is quite sure how PIE was pronounced!



When we talk about PIE phonemes like /*d/, we don't mean it was actually IPA [d]. We mean that "there seems to have been a phoneme, which is pronounced [d] in a lot of descendant languages". But there are also many languages which don't pronounce it [d]: Germanic, Anatolian (an extremely conservative branch), Armenian, and Tocharian all have [t] there. So there's a theory that /*d/ was actually [t'], an ejective, which makes certain weirdnesses in PIE a whole lot less weird. (Look into the "glottalic theory" for more details; there's some info in this question's answers too.)



Similarly, PIE has two "velar" series, the ones marked with accents (/*ḱ/) and the ones without (/*k/). It's clear that there was a difference between these series, because they act differently in the satem languages, but there's very little agreement on what the difference actually was. Personally, I like the theory that /*ḱ/ was velar ([k]) and /*k/ was uvular ([q]), but you can find a great number of linguists who would vehemently disagree with me. In particular, if you don't accept the glottalic theory, the uvular theory makes the weird consonant system even weirder, requiring sounds that aren't attested in any language in the world.



On the plus side, there are only two (maybe three) phonetic rules reconstructed for PIE that aren't represented in written-out reconstructions:




  • /*e/ next to /*h₂/ becomes [a]


  • /*e/ next to /*h₃/ becomes [o]

And sometimes (depending on reconstruction):



  • Consonant clusters assimilate in voicing, and nasals assimilate in place

That change definitely happened at some point, there's solid evidence for that, but it's unclear if it should be called a part of PIE or a later change.



So if you want to turn a PIE word into IPA, the process is straightforward:



  • Decide which pronunciation you want for each reconstructed phoneme

  • Map each phoneme onto its chosen pronunciation

  • Apply the two (or three) sound changes

And you're done! But note that this pronunciation is very definitely not accurate to what the actual early Indo-Europeans would have used: that's the problem with using reconstructions. There's just too much detail that's been lost over the millennia. (In particular, there were certainly more phonetic changes than the three I listed—we just don't have enough evidence to reconstruct others with any certainty.)



Here's my personal guess as to pronunciations:



chart of phonemes



But it must be emphasized that this is only a guess: an educated guess, sure, but there's just not enough evidence to call it a "theory", and given the lack of evidence, it's not really falsifiable. Other linguists here can probably give you a dozen other reconstructions that differ from mine. That said—while this guess isn't better than any other, it's also not really worse than any other. So depending on your purposes, that might be enough.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited May 19 at 17:04

























answered May 19 at 16:52









DraconisDraconis

15.1k12361




15.1k12361







  • 1





    @vectory I'd say the reconstruction does show what phonemes there are…but as you say, it misses out on the hundreds of phonetic details every language has, like the English glottal stop. Which is why, alas, we can never really have any sort of "accurate" Proto-Indo-European pronunciation.

    – Draconis
    May 19 at 19:10






  • 1





    (That said, why do you say it's off-topic? OP asked for PIE words in IPA, and I'm explaining why they can't find that anywhere—there's simply not enough info available to do more than guess at the actual pronunciation.)

    – Draconis
    May 19 at 19:10






  • 3





    @Rock Unfortunately, to my knowledge, such a resource does not exist (because the actual pronunciation is still unknown).

    – Draconis
    May 19 at 19:38






  • 3





    @Rock Wiktionary is making a guess (or, rather, Ringe (2006) is making a guess), but it's still no better than guessing. I'm not sure why those particular pages have phonetics given, but imo it's a mistake to list guessed phonetics alongside the far more solid information like the declension table.

    – Draconis
    May 19 at 20:04






  • 2





    Wiktionary as well as this answer are trying "to scratch an itch", but of course any dilligent guardian will tell that scratching may worsen the symptoms.

    – vectory
    May 19 at 20:24













  • 1





    @vectory I'd say the reconstruction does show what phonemes there are…but as you say, it misses out on the hundreds of phonetic details every language has, like the English glottal stop. Which is why, alas, we can never really have any sort of "accurate" Proto-Indo-European pronunciation.

    – Draconis
    May 19 at 19:10






  • 1





    (That said, why do you say it's off-topic? OP asked for PIE words in IPA, and I'm explaining why they can't find that anywhere—there's simply not enough info available to do more than guess at the actual pronunciation.)

    – Draconis
    May 19 at 19:10






  • 3





    @Rock Unfortunately, to my knowledge, such a resource does not exist (because the actual pronunciation is still unknown).

    – Draconis
    May 19 at 19:38






  • 3





    @Rock Wiktionary is making a guess (or, rather, Ringe (2006) is making a guess), but it's still no better than guessing. I'm not sure why those particular pages have phonetics given, but imo it's a mistake to list guessed phonetics alongside the far more solid information like the declension table.

    – Draconis
    May 19 at 20:04






  • 2





    Wiktionary as well as this answer are trying "to scratch an itch", but of course any dilligent guardian will tell that scratching may worsen the symptoms.

    – vectory
    May 19 at 20:24








1




1





@vectory I'd say the reconstruction does show what phonemes there are…but as you say, it misses out on the hundreds of phonetic details every language has, like the English glottal stop. Which is why, alas, we can never really have any sort of "accurate" Proto-Indo-European pronunciation.

– Draconis
May 19 at 19:10





@vectory I'd say the reconstruction does show what phonemes there are…but as you say, it misses out on the hundreds of phonetic details every language has, like the English glottal stop. Which is why, alas, we can never really have any sort of "accurate" Proto-Indo-European pronunciation.

– Draconis
May 19 at 19:10




1




1





(That said, why do you say it's off-topic? OP asked for PIE words in IPA, and I'm explaining why they can't find that anywhere—there's simply not enough info available to do more than guess at the actual pronunciation.)

– Draconis
May 19 at 19:10





(That said, why do you say it's off-topic? OP asked for PIE words in IPA, and I'm explaining why they can't find that anywhere—there's simply not enough info available to do more than guess at the actual pronunciation.)

– Draconis
May 19 at 19:10




3




3





@Rock Unfortunately, to my knowledge, such a resource does not exist (because the actual pronunciation is still unknown).

– Draconis
May 19 at 19:38





@Rock Unfortunately, to my knowledge, such a resource does not exist (because the actual pronunciation is still unknown).

– Draconis
May 19 at 19:38




3




3





@Rock Wiktionary is making a guess (or, rather, Ringe (2006) is making a guess), but it's still no better than guessing. I'm not sure why those particular pages have phonetics given, but imo it's a mistake to list guessed phonetics alongside the far more solid information like the declension table.

– Draconis
May 19 at 20:04





@Rock Wiktionary is making a guess (or, rather, Ringe (2006) is making a guess), but it's still no better than guessing. I'm not sure why those particular pages have phonetics given, but imo it's a mistake to list guessed phonetics alongside the far more solid information like the declension table.

– Draconis
May 19 at 20:04




2




2





Wiktionary as well as this answer are trying "to scratch an itch", but of course any dilligent guardian will tell that scratching may worsen the symptoms.

– vectory
May 19 at 20:24






Wiktionary as well as this answer are trying "to scratch an itch", but of course any dilligent guardian will tell that scratching may worsen the symptoms.

– vectory
May 19 at 20:24


















draft saved

draft discarded
















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Linguistics Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid


  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flinguistics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f31496%2fproto-indo-european-pie-words-with-ipa%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

Wikipedia:Vital articles Мазмуну Biography - Өмүр баян Philosophy and psychology - Философия жана психология Religion - Дин Social sciences - Коомдук илимдер Language and literature - Тил жана адабият Science - Илим Technology - Технология Arts and recreation - Искусство жана эс алуу History and geography - Тарых жана география Навигация менюсу

Bruxelas-Capital Índice Historia | Composición | Situación lingüística | Clima | Cidades irmandadas | Notas | Véxase tamén | Menú de navegacióneO uso das linguas en Bruxelas e a situación do neerlandés"Rexión de Bruxelas Capital"o orixinalSitio da rexiónPáxina de Bruselas no sitio da Oficina de Promoción Turística de Valonia e BruxelasMapa Interactivo da Rexión de Bruxelas-CapitaleeWorldCat332144929079854441105155190212ID28008674080552-90000 0001 0666 3698n94104302ID540940339365017018237

What should I write in an apology letter, since I have decided not to join a company after accepting an offer letterShould I keep looking after accepting a job offer?What should I do when I've been verbally told I would get an offer letter, but still haven't gotten one after 4 weeks?Do I accept an offer from a company that I am not likely to join?New job hasn't confirmed starting date and I want to give current employer as much notice as possibleHow should I address my manager in my resignation letter?HR delayed background verification, now jobless as resignedNo email communication after accepting a formal written offer. How should I phrase the call?What should I do if after receiving a verbal offer letter I am informed that my written job offer is put on hold due to some internal issues?Should I inform the current employer that I am about to resign within 1-2 weeks since I have signed the offer letter and waiting for visa?What company will do, if I send their offer letter to another company