Editing Indo-European languages (section)

=== Proposed subgroupings ===
{{Hypothetical Indo-European subfamilies}}
Specialists have postulated the existence of higher-order subgroups such as [[Italo-Celtic]], [[Graeco-Armenian]], [[Graeco-Aryan]] or Graeco-Armeno-Aryan, and Balto-Slavo-Germanic. However, unlike the ten traditional branches, these are all controversial to a greater or lesser degree.<ref>{{cite book |title=Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture |publisher=Fitzroy Dearborn |last1=Mallory |first1=J. P. |last2=Adams |first2=D. Q. |year=1997 |location=London}}</ref>

The Italo-Celtic subgroup was at one point uncontroversial, considered by [[Antoine Meillet]] to be even better established than Balto-Slavic.{{sfn|Porzig|1954|p=39}} The main lines of evidence included the genitive suffix ''-ī''; the superlative suffix ''-m̥mo''; the change of /p/ to /kʷ/ before another /kʷ/ in the same word (as in ''penkʷe'' > ''*kʷenkʷe'' > Latin {{lang|la|quīnque}}, Old Irish {{lang|sga|cóic}}); and the subjunctive morpheme ''-ā-''.{{sfn|Fortson|2004|p=247}} This evidence was prominently challenged by [[Calvert Watkins]],<ref>{{cite encyclopedia |title=Italo-Celtic revisited |encyclopedia=Ancient Indo-European dialects |publisher=[[University of California Press]] |last=Watkins |first=Calvert |editor1-last=Birnbaum |editor1-first=Henrik |editor2-last=Puhvel |editor2-first=Jaan |year=1966 |location=Berkeley |pages=29–50}}</ref> while Michael Weiss has argued for the subgroup.<ref>{{cite conference |title=Italo-Celtica: linguistic and cultural points of contact between Italic and Celtic |conference=Proceedings of the 23rd annual UCLA Indo-European Conference |publisher=Hempen |last=Weiss |first=Michael |editor1-last=Jamison |editor1-first=Stephanie W. |editor2-last=Melchert |editor2-first=H. Craig |editor3-last=Vine |editor3-first=Brent |year=2012 |location=Bremen |pages=151–173 |url=https://www.academia.edu/3249855 |access-date=19 February 2018 |isbn=978-3-934106-99-4}}</ref>

Evidence for a relationship between Greek and Armenian includes the regular change of the [[Laryngeal theory|second laryngeal]] to ''a'' at the beginnings of words, as well as terms for "woman" and "sheep".<ref>{{cite journal |title=Review of ''The linguistic relationship between Armenian and Greek'' by James Clackson |last=Greppin |first=James |journal=[[Language (journal)|Language]] |year=1996 |volume=72 |issue=4 |pages=804–807 |doi=10.2307/416105 |jstor=416105}}</ref> Greek and Indo-Iranian share innovations mainly in verbal morphology and patterns of nominal derivation.<ref>{{cite book |title=Indoiranisch-griechische Gemeinsamkeiten der Nominalbildung und deren indogermanische Grundlagen |language=de |trans-title=Indo-Iranian-Greek similarities in nominal formation and their Indo-European foundations |publisher=Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck |last=Euler |first=Wolfram |author-link=Wolfram Euler |year=1979 |location=Innsbruck}}</ref> Relations have also been proposed between Phrygian and Greek,{{sfn|Lubotsky|1988}} and between Thracian and Armenian.{{sfn|Kortlandt|1988}}<ref>{{cite book |last=Renfrew |first=Colin |author-link=Colin Renfrew |date=1987 |title=Archaeology & Language. The Puzzle of the Indo-European Origins |location=London |publisher=Jonathan Cape |isbn=978-0-224-02495-2}}</ref> Some fundamental shared features, like the [[aorist]] (a verb form denoting action without reference to duration or completion) having the perfect active particle -s fixed to the stem, link this group closer to Anatolian languages{{sfn|Encyclopædia Britannica|1981|p=593}} and Tocharian. Shared features with Balto-Slavic languages, on the other hand (especially present and preterit formations), might be due to later contacts.{{sfn|Encyclopædia Britannica|1981|loc=p. 667 George S. Lane, Douglas Q. Adams, ''The Tocharian problem''}}

The [[Indo-Hittite]] hypothesis proposes that the Indo-European language family consists of two main branches: one represented by the Anatolian languages and another branch encompassing all other Indo-European languages. Features that separate Anatolian from all other branches of Indo-European (such as the gender or the verb system) have been interpreted alternately as archaic debris or as innovations due to prolonged isolation. Points proffered in favour of the Indo-Hittite hypothesis are the (non-universal) Indo-European agricultural terminology in Anatolia<ref>The supposed autochthony of Hittites, the Indo-Hittite hypothesis and migration of agricultural "Indo-European" societies became intrinsically linked together by Colin Renfrew ({{harvnb|Renfrew|2001|pp=36–73}}).</ref> and the preservation of laryngeals.{{sfn|Encyclopædia Britannica|1981|loc=Houwink ten Cate, H. J.; Melchert, H. Craig & van den Hout, Theo P. J. p. 586 ''The parent language, Laryngeal theory''; pp. 589, 593 ''Anatolian languages''}} However, in general this hypothesis is considered to attribute too much weight to the Anatolian evidence. According to another view, the Anatolian subgroup left the Indo-European parent language comparatively late, approximately at the same time as Indo-Iranian and later than the Greek or Armenian divisions. A third view, especially prevalent in the so-called French school of Indo-European studies, holds that extant similarities in non-[[satem]] languages in general—including Anatolian—might be due to their peripheral location in the Indo-European language-area and to early separation, rather than indicating a special ancestral relationship.{{sfn|Encyclopædia Britannica|1981|loc=p. 594, ''Indo-Hittite hypothesis''}} Hans J. Holm, based on lexical calculations, arrives at a picture roughly replicating the general scholarly opinion and refuting the Indo-Hittite hypothesis.<ref>{{harvnb|Holm|2008|pp=629–636}}. The result is a partly new chain of separation for the main Indo-European branches, which fits well to the grammatical facts, as well as to the geographical distribution of these branches. In particular it clearly demonstrates that the Anatolian languages did not part as first ones and thereby refutes the Indo-Hittite hypothesis.</ref>