Episode 8: Indo-European Grammar (Where have all the inflexions gone?)

The grammar of the original Indo-European language is compared to Modern English. We explore the word endings called ‘inflexions’ which were a prominent feature of the original Indo-European language.

10 thoughts on “Episode 8: Indo-European Grammar (Where have all the inflexions gone?)

  1. I am fascinated by this podcast.
    I understand how the nouns of this language was reconstructed, but I was wondering how was the grammar rebuild? How did we figure out the 8 cases of the noun?

    • I am not a professional linguist or philologer, but my understanding is that it was essentially the same process by which much of the Indo-European vocabulary was reconstructed. Most Indo-European languages still use inflectional endings, but they vary from one language to the next. So linguists did a comparative analysis and focused on the earliest attested Indo-European languages to look at the endings used in those earlier attested languages. From there, they were able to reconstructed the various endings.

  2. Hello!
    I discovered this podcast only yesterday and already reached this point of your very addictive narration. As a German, who is very interested in languages in general and particularly in the origin of languages, I really appreciate the way you tell all these fascinating details. When I started learning English as a child, I was surprised about the similarities, especially when it comes to dialects or older forms of German and English. Modern English “two” doesn’t sound like modern German “zwei”, but on telephone, we also say “zwo”, to make a difference to “drei” (= 3). Then I had some Swedish-lessons and many moments of enlightenment. (2= två, like a mixture of G and E) There are “false friends” like Gift (G) and gift (E) meaning present and poison, Never confuse those two! But what does it reveal about Sweden, where “gift” means married? I can’t wait to listen to all of the following episodes! And: Sorry to those guys, who try to study german grammar. Keep on trying…. 😉

  3. Like Vroni, I just found this podcast and listened this far in a day. Of course I’m interested! You give many fine examples. And, your version of American English has differences from mine that make the point of language variation.

  4. About the Mark Twain quote “The Germans have [a] way of cutting up their verbs. They take part of a verb and put it down here … and they take the other part of it and put it away over yonder … and between … they just shovel in German.”

    I believe this is not a reference to inflection but to the separable verb. English has phrasal verbs that are analogous. “Check in”, “check up”, and “check out” all have quite different meanings. Mark Twain is referring to the fact that the verb parts can be separated, much as English does in “I checked it out already”, rather than “I checkouted it already”.

    Francophone computer programmers I work with with use French conjugation on this borrowed English word in the context of checking a file into a repository. “Je l’ai checkiné” (I it have checkined”).

  5. For more understanding of the reasons for English conjugations of “to be”, it is useful to look at the conjugations of verbs translated “to be” in the Romance languages. In Spanish, there is estar and ser: estar has regular conjugation, while ser is the most irregular Spanish verb I know of. My Spanish teacher had some theories (besides ease of speaking, which is the reason behind most of the irregularities in Spanish spelling) relating to the shades of meaning of “to be”.

  6. The earlier comment about the Mark Twain quote is correct; the quote is all about what are called separable verbs, not inflexion at all.

    Another minor glitch: the French for “of the” (masc. sing.) is “du”, not “de le”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *