original endings

Cross section of various opinions about original PIE endings, not yet displaced by pronoun endings. Theories about earlier stages, more precise definitions, and a few outliers not integrated into the table are given in the footnotes.

• singular animate nominative: -?(s) (commonly assumed to be one original -s dissolved in some sound environments by Szemerényi's Law, but Beekes' explanation differs radically; Ringe 2006 p.41,42; Meier-Brügger 2010 p.330,331; Sihler 1995 p.248,250; Fortson 2010 p.115,116; Beekes 2011 p.186,214-216 assumes an earlier ergative-absolutive case system, with the absolutive endingless, and the ergative in -s, related to the later genitive form; Szemerényi 1990 p.121,122,169)
• singular animate vocative: -Ø (Ringe 2006 p.41,42; Meier-Brügger 2010 p.330; Sihler 1995 p.248,250; Fortson 2010 p.116; Beekes 2011 p.186; Szemerényi 1990 p.169)
• singular animate accusative: -m (Ringe 2006 p.41; Meier-Brügger 2010 p.330,331; Sihler 1995 p.248,250; Fortson 2010 p.115; Beekes 2011 p.186,187; Szemerényi 1990 p.169)
• singular inanimate direct cases: -Ø (Ringe 2006 p.41,42; Meier-Brügger 2010 p.335; Sihler 1995 p.248,250; Fortson 2010 p.115; Beekes 2011 p.186,187; Szemerényi 1990 p.169)
• singular locative: -?(i) (probably two separate endings, one with an -i that may have been a zero-grade of a common form with the dative, one a specific "endingless locative"; Ringe 2006 p.41,42 assumes -Ø to which the "hic et nunc" particle -i- was added (no mention of common form with dative); Meier-Brügger 2010 p.330,331 hints at a possible common form with dative at an extremely early stage; Sihler 1995 p.248,253 also hints at a possible early common form with the dative; Fortson 2010 p.115,116; Beekes 2011 p.186,187 verbalizes the idea of a common form with the dative most radically; Szemerényi 1990 p.169 only has -i)
• singular dative: -ei (possibly a common form with the singular locative's -i at an extremely early stage, see its discussion for more; Ringe 2006 p.41,43; Meier-Brügger 2010 p.330; Sihler 1995 p.248,251 has -(e|o|a)i, Sihler 1995 p.253 hints at this dative originally being unmarked for number; Fortson 2010 p.115,116; Beekes 2011 p.186,187; Szemerényi 1990 p.169)
• • singular ablative: -?(e|o)s
  • singular genitive: -?(e|o)s

  (both cases combined; Ringe 2006 p.41-43 has -?(e|o)s and "extensive ablaut alternations"; Meier-Brügger 2010 p.330,331 counts -os variant as un-accented; Sihler 1995 p.248,250,251 also has -s "rarely"; Fortson 2010 p.115,116 has mere -s sometimes; Beekes 2011 p.186,187; Szemerényi 1990 p.169 has -?(e|o)s)
• singular instrumental: -?(e)h₁ (Ringe 2006 p.41,43; Fortson 2010 p.115,116; Meier-Brügger 2010 p.330,331; Sihler 1995 p.248,252 also has -bʰis; F115,116; Beekes 2011 p.186,187 has -eh₁ except for i- and u-stems, there -h₁; Szemerényi 1990 p.169 has -(e|o) (commonly keeping his laryngeals scarce) and -(bʰ|m)i)
• dual animate direct cases: -h₁?(e) (Ringe 2006 p.41 has -h₁e; Meier-Brügger 2010 p.330 indicates -h₁ for the nominative only; Sihler 1995 p.255,256 derives -e, -h₁ or -h₁e, favoring the last two; F117; Beekes 2011 p.216,217 derives -h₁e; Szemerényi 1990 p.169 (skeptical against laryngeals) has -e, -i or -ī)
• dual inanimate direct cases: -ih₁ (Ringe 2006 p.41; Meier-Brügger 2010: no indication; Sihler 1995: no indication; Fortson 2010 p.117; Beekes 2011 p.216,217; Szemerényi 1990 p.169 has -i or -ī)
• plural animate nominative and vocative: -es (Ringe 2006 p.41; Meier-Brügger 2010 p.330; Sihler 1995 p.248,254; Fortson 2010 p.117; Beekes 2011 p.186,188; Szemerényi 1990 p.168,169)
• plural animate accusative: -ns (assumed to be result of an accusative marker -m plus a plural marker -s; Ringe 2006 p.41; Meier-Brügger 2010 p.330; Sihler 1995 p.248,254 has PIE -ms becoming -ns "in attested languages"; Fortson 2010 p.117; Beekes 2011 p.186,188; Szemerényi 1990 p.169)
• plural inanimate direct cases: -?(h₂) (Ringe 2006 p.41,42,44; Meier-Brügger 2010 p.335,336 sees -h₂- as suffix for collectives as the proper form for pluralities of non-agents (in contrast to distributive plurals for potential agents), to which the singular neuter's (non-)ending -Ø might have been (non-)added; Sihler 1995 p.248,254 has -h₂; Fortson 2010 p.118,131,132 also has the ending as derived from the collective suffix; Beekes 2011 p.186,188 has -h₂ with the collective explanation, in parallel with an ending -Ø; Szemerényi 1990 p.169 (with some skepticism against laryngeals) has -ā or -ə)
• plural locative: -su (Ringe 2006 p.41; Meier-Brügger 2010 p.330; Sihler 1995 p.248,253; Fortson 2010 p.117,118; Beekes 2011 p.186,189; Szemerényi 1990 p.169)
• • plural dative: -(bʰ?(i̯)|m)os
  • plural ablative: -(bʰ?(i̯)|m)os

  (both cases combined; Ringe 2006 p.41 has -mos; Meier-Brügger 2010 p.330,332 has -mos; Sihler 1995 p.248 has -(m|bʰ)os; Fortson 2010 p.117-119 has -bʰ?(i̯)os and a PIE-late development of -(bʰ|m)-endings from adpositions or adverbs related to English "by" and German "mit"; Beekes 2011 p.186,188,189 has -mus for the dative plural and speculates about -ios for the ablative plural, which may have merged with the instrumental's -bʰ- to a common -(bʰ?(i̯)|m)os; Szemerényi 1990 p.169 has -(bʰ?(i)|m)os)
• plural genitive: -(ō|o)m (Ringe 2006 p.41 has -oHom; Meier-Brügger 2010 p.330; Sihler 1995 p.248, 254-255 indicates -?(o|ō)m; Fortson 2010 p.117,118,129; Beekes 2011 p.186,188 derives -om; Szemerényi 1990 p.169 has -om)
• plural instrumental: -(bʰ|m)i?(s) (Ringe 2006 p.41 has -bʰi; Meier-Brügger 2010 p.330,332 has -bʰi; Sihler 1995 p.248 has -(bʰ|m)is; Fortson 2010 p.117-119 has -bʰi- and a PIE-late development of -(bʰ|m)-endings from adpositions or adverbs related to English "by" and German "mit"; Beekes 2011 p.186,187,189 has -bʰi and a relation to a particle related to English "by"; Szemerényi 1990 p.169 has -(bʰ|m)is and (thematic?) -ōis)

accent and ablaut classes (Beekes)

Accent and ablaut classes as calculated in Beekes 2011. This is the second edition of the often-quoted Beekes 1995 p.175, in which the numbering of the hysterodynamic types is different: Beekes 1995 type 1 is Beekes 2011 type 4, and vice versa.

• static all cases: é-Ø-Ø (Beekes 2011 p.191)
• • proterodynamic direct cases: é-Ø-Ø
  • proterodynamic genitive: Ø-(é|ó)-Ø
  • hysterodynamic (type 1) nominative: é-Ø-Ø
  • hysterodynamic (type 2) nominative: é-ō-Ø
  • hysterodynamic (type 4) nominative: Ø-é̄-Ø
  • hysterodynamic (type 1) accusative: Ø-é-Ø
  • hysterodynamic (type 2) accusative: Ø-é-Ø
  • hysterodynamic (type 4) accusative: Ø-é-Ø
  • hysterodynamic (type 1) genitive: Ø-Ø-ó
  • hysterodynamic (type 2) genitive: Ø-Ø-ó
  • hysterodynamic (type 4) genitive: Ø-Ø-ó
  • hysterodynamic (type 3) nominative: ?(e|é)-(ō̂|ō)-Ø
  • hysterodynamic (type 3) accusative: (e|é)-(ó|o)-Ø
  • hysterodynamic (type 3) genitive: ?(e)-Ø-ó

  (Beekes 2011 p.190)

original accent and ablaut classes (Kloekhorst)

Original accent and ablaut classes as reconstructed by Kloekhorst 2013 p.125.

• • static all cases: é-Ø-Ø
  • mobile nominative singular: é-Ø-Ø
  • neuter accusative singular: é-Ø-Ø
  • non-neuter accusative singular: Ø-é-Ø
  • mobile locative singular: Ø-é-Ø
  • neuter genitive singular: Ø-é-Ø
  • non-neuter genitive singular: Ø-Ø-é

original ending particles (Beekes)

Early-PIE ending particles as read into Beekes 2011.

• • singular ergative and genitive: -os
  • singular absolute and locative: -Ø

  (Beekes 2011 p.186,187,214-216)
• singular dative and locative : -ei (Beekes 2011 p.186,187)
• plural dative: -mus (Beekes 2011 p.186,188)
• plural ablative: -ios (Beekes 2011 p.186,189)
• plural instrumental: -bʰi (Beekes 2011 p.186,187,189)

Bibliography

• Beekes, Robert S. P.: Comparative Indo-European Linguistics: an Introduction. John Benjamins 1995.
• Beekes, Robert S. P.: Comparative Indo-European Linguistics: an Introduction. Second Edition. John Benjamins 2011.
• Fortson, Benjamin W.: Indo-European Language and Culture: an Introduction. Second Edition. Blackwell 2010.
• Kloekhorst, Alwin: Indo-European nominal ablaut patterns: The Anatolian Evidence. In: Götz Keydana, Paul Widmer, Thomas Olander (editors): Indo-European Accent and Ablaut. Copenhagen Studies in Indo-European, Vol. 5. Museum Tusculanum 2013.
• Meier-Brügger, Michael: Indogermanische Sprachwissenschaft. 9. durchgesehene und ergänzte Auflage. De Gruyter 2010.
• Ringe, Don: From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic. Oxford University Press 2006.
• Sihler, Andrew L.: New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin. Oxford University Press 1995.
• Szemerényi, Oswald: Einführung in die vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft. 4., durchgesehene Auflage. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft 1990.