Following the initial release date previously announced, the main collaborative textbook published by the Association, A Grammar of Modern Indo-European, has entered a pre-version 4 stage, heading for its second printed edition.
Appart from the expected changes in MIE concept (viz. EIE, PIH, etc.) and the correction of errors and ommissions, the structure has been revised and new sections added, thanks to the unending contributions of Fernando López-Menchero. Among them, a “Indo-European in Use” section and a phonetical transcription of common vocabulary from English into Indo-European, with Latin meaning for clarification.
The Pre-Version has been published as another revision of the first printed edition (v. 3.85), to allow more contributions and corrections until this (fourth) full revision of the grammar is finished. Publication of the second printed edition is due before the end of this year.
Your Indo-European Language Team.
2 thoughts on “The collaborative textbook A Grammar of Modern Indo-European, already in pre-version 4, heading for its second printed edition”
>Apart from the expected changes in MIE concept (viz. EIE, PIH, etc.)
Not sure what this is about. Can you explain in more detail?
Besides that it’s good to see an update here. I’ll probably put a post up on the blog about that today.
With “the expected changes in MIE concept(s)” I meant the logical changes that follow the newest conceptions agreed on in our Indo-European revival project.
To understand it, one needs to have followed the previous changes in the Indo-European revival concept, which can be inferred (not easily, that’s true) from recent changes in the grammar and in our websites. Almost every writing in or about MIE “drags” so to speak older (now deemed more or less “wrong”) concepts, and they have to be revised accordingly in new writings and newer versions of the grammar: hence the adjective “expected”, different from – for example – the new section included, “Indo-European in Use”, or some sections deleted, which were not “expected”.
The MIE conceptions are more or less summarized by the different Grammar version numbers, but simplifying them, as in the book, we could say that:
1) “Europaio” (from the first grammar, Europaio: A Grammar of the European Language) was a very simple concept of using a modern (but common) Late Proto-Indo-European language. It was more prescriptive than descriptive, “choosing” – more or less arbitrarily – to use certain cases, to use some (modern) vocabulary and not other, to write laryngeals with their later output, etc.
2) Modern Indo-European was a revision of that simple Europaio concept, trying to bring it to a more natural Late PIE, with the introduction of etymological notes, further explanations, etc. It tried to overcome the “Esperanto-like” appearance of the first (prescriptive) Europaio, but still that revived Late PIE seemed too artificial, as it selected European dialectal nominal and verbal forms.
3) The 3rd version meant a full revision of the verbal system and an introduction to the Late PIE syntax – instead of just a selected modern European one. The inclusion of the concept of the Northwestern dialect was necessary, as it was obvious that we couldn’t use Late PIE, but a common, modern European PIE without laryngeals, and thus we had to select some dialectal form (in our case, EIE). A purer PIE vocabulary was recommended.
— Here came the first printed edition, planned for march, published in august, but still with a lot of paragraphs and whole sections left uncorrected in the rush —
4) Following that (v.3) concept of the Europe’s Indo-European language (EIE) to be revived, the necessary emphasis is put on the revival of dialectal Proto-European, as well as on the reconstruction of common Middle Proto-Indo-European or Indo-Hittite (PIH) roots for etymology, as a way to know how to reconstruct the vocabulary for other living PIE dialects at the time when EIE was spoken, i.e. Proto-Greek, Proto-Indo-Iranian and Common Anatolian. Instead of a unified scheme, a plural (natural) one has to be accepted, however difficult it might be to implement.
I think it is more or less evident from each minor change made to the grammar, and obviously in full revisions, that the underlying concept remains the same (a common PIE for Europe), but that it needed (and needs) to be specific about every detail of the language(s) we want to revive, especially taking on account that they are reconstructed (AKA “hypothetical”) proto-languages.
It is, in any case, a revival of a natural language (or, better, its dialects), and prescription should be used only when necessary. I hope that the content of the grammar is properly “transferred” to the Wikis after version 4 (Second Printed Edition) is published, and that everyone can then collaborate – and not just a few of us per e-mail – with immediate minor changes, and with full concept revisions discussed in the “Community” section, instead of hidden personal discussions.
Nowadays a change in concept agreed by us is shown somewhere in our websites within weeks, but isn’t implemented until many months have gone by, due to the limited time we have, and many (“wrong”) writings of every concept remain elsewhere… That is apparent e.g. in the Etymological notes, if you compare the revised notes (1-70) with the following ones.
Comments are closed.