Linguistics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professional linguists and others with an interest in linguistic research and theory. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
I'm interested in etymology, so I see often the root of a word shown as a reconstructed PIE root, but is it only a set of words, or could we speak this reconstructed language? (even if it's only a reconstruction)
Just a set of words, or is there also a reconstructed grammar letting us speak in Common Proto-European?
If there's no reconstructed grammar, or not enough, does a conlang exist trying to mimic it? Meaning that it keeps the vocabulary, and invent a grammar.
Just a set of words, or is there also a reconstructed grammar letting us speak in Common Proto-European?
Absolutely! In fact, one of the best ways to show that a language is Indo-European is through its grammar—words are easy to borrow, swaths of morphology, not so much. The Hittite words wādar "water" and ēd- "eat" were a good clue that the language was IE, but it was the inflections that clinched it.
is it only a set of words, or could we spoke this reconstructed language? (even if it's only a reconstruction)
Modern reconstructions are definitely complete enough to speak, though nobody's particularly fluent in it (because what would be the point?). But if you look up "Schleicher's Fable", or "The King and the God", you can find some texts scholars have composed in reconstructed PIE.
Schleicher's Fable in particular is a fascinating way to compare different theories, because it's become a sort of tradition now for anyone publishing a major new theory of PIE to show what the Fable would look like in their reconstruction.
If there's no reconstructed grammar, or not enough, does a conlang exist trying to mimic it? Meaning that it keeps the vocabulary, and invent a grammar.
Depending on your definition, all reconstructions of PIE are a posteriori conlangs! However, I don't know of anyone who's tried to flesh out PIE grammar for artistic purposes rather than as an attempt to explain the data.
If you wish to explore the adequacy of PIE vocabulary and grammar, as reconstructed, for purposes of narration, I would impishly suggest that you take a stab at composing a fable, retelling some of the tales from early chapters of Genesis, or translating Psalm 104 (in modern Protestant numbering). You will inevitably be obliged to make numerous decisions: to make choices among quasi-synonyms, to invent conjunctions, syntax for conditional constructions, and statements of purpose, and to make your own guess at dual endings to tell the story of Adam & Eve. It's hard, but not impossible. Good luck! Whatever you do will certainly be better than the clownish effort of Academia Prisca, formerly DNGHU, to revive PIE as a common language for Europe. Their conlang is consciously modeled on medieval Latin. Why not the real thing?
