何新：西方学界伪造雅利安人起源的本末_风闻

【本文提要】所谓雅利安的历史真相雅利安人(Aryan)是欧洲18—19世纪西方学界对所谓的“印欧语系”语言及所属各族的总称。18世纪欧洲有人宣称印度的梵语同波斯语以及古希腊语、拉丁语、克尔特语、日耳曼语、斯拉夫语等有某些共同点,于是便根据“雅利安”这个名词而造出“雅利安语”一词，来概括这些相互有关的语言,后来又称之为“印欧语”。西方学界称：远古在南亚地区曾有一个自称“雅利阿”Aryan（来自梵语：高贵者）的白种人游牧部落集团，其语言是梵语。所谓印欧语系的印即印地，就是指梵语。后来20世纪中期，西方学界又改变说法称，雅利安部落最初来自东欧草原，在公元前2000至1000年间,雅利安部落集团分成三支;一支南下定居印度河上游流域,一支进入波斯境内, 另一支向西迁入小亚细亚。19世纪,欧洲一些种族主义者积极鼓吹，凡是使用印欧语言的各族人都属“雅利安人种”,其中欧洲的日耳曼民族被称为最纯粹的“雅利安人”。这种说法在20世纪30年代被德国纳粹分子用作对犹太人、吉普赛人以及其他一切“非雅利安人”进行种族清洗灭绝的借口。50——60年代关于雅利安人的说法由于第三世界反对文化殖民主义浪潮猛烈以及文化多元论的兴起，此说一度沉寂。但是90年代冷战结束以后，特别是近年以来，这种雅利安——白种人作为人类文明创始者，居于人类文明中心及领导地位的说法再度兴起，构成后冷战时代全球主义意识形态和历史观的核心内容。

雅利安Aryan一词源自梵文，意为“高贵者”。西方主流世界历史学于17——19世纪建立雅利安人种优越论的学说。

所谓的“雅利安人”，本来是历史上从没有任何可信记载（所根据的都是现在见不到也说不清的某些梵文资料）而近乎虚构出来的一个亚洲族群——不知从哪里来，也不知后来向何处去。

据欧美史学界的说法，所谓雅利安人的识别标准，唯一就是根据他们都讲着一种“雅利安的共同母语”。这种雅利安共同母语的另一个“科学”的名称，即所谓“原始印欧语”。

但是问题在于，历史上根本就没有任何史料或证据证明人类中曾经存在这种语言。这种所谓“雅利安语言”或者原始印欧语言，是被16——17世纪欧洲和神圣罗马帝国的教会学者通过所谓比较语言学的方法虚拟以及虚构（即根据猜测，臆造或者伪造出来）的。其中最有名的炮制者即荷兰人马库斯·冯·鲍霍恩Marcus Zuerius von Boxhorn（1612—1653）和德国人弗朗兹·博普主教(Franz Bopp1791——1867)。极为有趣的是，这两个人在崇洋的中国学术界现在似乎没有人知道。他们可能被西方人刻意地隐匿，因为这样才能把他们的学说伪装成自古有之的客观真理。

而后在18—20世纪，这种虚拟的原始印欧语言就被作为一种历史事实，系统地引入人类学、考古学、历史学，从而虚拟出了一个特殊的古代优秀人类种族——雅利安人种或者民族。于是，人类早期文明的一切卓越成果（包括古巴比伦、埃及、小亚细亚、罗马、波斯、印度和黄河文明），就都被归于这个优越人种的创造物。西方人称，这个雅利安人种乃是希腊、罗马人和现代欧美人的共同祖先。以上就是17世纪以来西方系统伪造的世界性伪史形成的基本脉络。［此种伪史的最新代表作之一，就是目前名声甚噪的威廉·麦克尼尔William H. McNeill的《世界史：从史前到21世纪全球文明的互动》一书。］

值得注意的是，西方上述伪史的构造基础，既不是建立于体质人类学、遗传人类学之上，也不是建立于考古学和历史文献学等等这种可信的实证科学的基础上；而完全是建立在所谓的比较语言学和虚拟语言学这种形而上学的基础上。西方学界制造伪史的方法就是：先建立一系列可疑的假说，然后把假说转变为信史，再用假说作为直接引证的史料。这种方法，西方人运用已经烂熟，自从文艺复兴以来，他们就一直在借助那个来历不明、时代不明、地缘不明、作者不明的“荷马史诗”，作为构造全部希腊史前伪史的基础。这种伪史，当然是完全不可征信的！

所谓的“原始印欧语”，是在17——19世纪欧洲对亚、非进行殖民的时代，由欧洲语言学家根据所谓的比较语言学的方法而所倒推、猜想而虚构出来的一种假想的古代语言。最早有系统提出这个假设的是荷兰人马库斯·冯·鲍霍恩Marcus Zuerius von Boxhorn（1612—1653）。

1647年，鲍霍恩提出梵语、波斯语言与若干印欧语言似乎存在语法的相似性，并假定他们出自原始的共同语言起源，这种原始语言他称之为西徐亚人语言。在他的假设中，这些起源相同的语言包括梵语、波斯语、荷兰语，阿尔巴尼亚语，希腊语，拉丁语，波斯语，以及德语和斯拉夫，还有凯尔特和波罗的海地区的语言。因此，他设想印度和欧洲的语言都起源于同一个原始语系统——这就是古印欧语系。不久，这种纯粹出于猜想和虚构出来的原始印欧语，就被西方主流学术界言之凿凿地断论，成为古典时代的拉丁语，希腊语，梵语和各种欧洲现代语言的始祖了。

如何让语言学的一种假说变成世界历史中的信史？

 图为关于印欧语系起源的“坟冢假说”Kurgan hypothesis，描述印欧人在公元前约4000年至1000年期间迁移的情况。虚箭头表示的“安纳托利亚迁移”的路线可能经过高加索地区或巴尔干半岛。粉色表示的范围为假设的原住地（Urheimat），包括萨马拉文化及斯莱德涅斯多格文化。红色表示的是操印欧语的族群在公元前约2500年可能已定居的地区，橙色表示的是前1000年左右的情形。

但是非常讽刺的是，由于欧洲人对阿拉伯人和犹太人的歧视，鲍霍恩和17—19世纪的欧洲学者却都并不承认雅利安语言（即古波斯语言、印度语言以及安纳托里亚的语言），与他们紧邻近的阿拉伯语、希伯来语和突厥语言有任何相似、相通性或者互相影响的关系，他们宁可认为这种据说也是亚洲起源的雅利安语言与遥远的北欧语系、日耳曼语系更加相近。

威廉·琼斯（英语：William Jones，1746年9月28日－1794年4月27日），英国语言学和东方学家，生于伦敦。琼斯毕业于哈罗公学和牛津大学。1774年为律师资格。1783年任印度殖民地孟加拉最高法院法官，后封爵士。他业余专攻梵语。为论证英国人统治印度的历史合法性，试图将雅利安语言与日耳曼—盎格鲁·撒克逊语言结合起来。他1787年断言梵语与拉丁语和希腊语有相似之处。

1787年英国人威廉·琼斯爵士提岀“原始印欧语”这个语言名称。他声称：拉丁语、希腊语与梵语和波斯语之间有相似之处。

 原始印欧语—所谓雅利安语理论的主要炮制者之一：弗朗兹·博普神父（1791—1867）19世纪初，德国的弗朗兹·博普主教(Franz Bopp1791——1867)，是继鲍霍恩后，系统炮制所谓原始印欧语的一位最著名的学者。博普针对几个主要语言的名词和动词形态进行比较，认为梵文与古代安纳托里亚语言、古希腊语言、拉丁语，波斯语和日耳曼语言有直接的亲缘关系。但是他还没有提出语音构拟的标准。于是19世纪不断涌现了一批批的欧洲学者，他们继续对印欧语的语音演变，系统地、大规模地进行了一系列可疑的重建。19世纪时，学者通常将这系虚拟语言称为“印度-日耳曼语系”，有时候也叫“雅利安语系”。

后来西方学术界普遍采用琼斯的名称，将欧亚大陆这些语言共同的假想祖先称作原始印欧语。关于这个语言的起始地（Urheimat）最早的说法是伊朗或者印度，后来又形成两种説法：一是认为来自黑海和里海北方的草原（即所谓“坟冢起源假说”Kurgan hypothesis），二是认为来自小亚细亚—安那托利亚。这些假说最引人注目的矛盾点就是，雅利安语言—所谓原始欧亚语言本来起源于梵语，现在则被远搬到乌克兰草原地带。支持坟冢起源假说者认为雅利安这种语言出现的时间在公元前约4000年左右；但支持安纳托利亚起源假説的，则将时间更往前推至7000——8000年（即印度-赫梯语）。 ［坟冢假说（英语：Kurgan hypothesis）是有关雅利安人起源问题的历史和考古假说之一。该假说认为雅利安人起源于“坟冢文化”，即东欧大草原上的亚姆纳文化（意为“坑墓文化”）及其前身的考古文化。坟冢假说是目前最为广泛接受的有关雅利安人起源的模型，与之相对的一个模型是“安纳托利亚假说”（将印欧语民的原住地定为小亚细亚）。    坟冢假说最早是由玛利亚·金布塔斯在1956年提出。金布塔斯在《史前的东欧》中首先提出该假说时，综合地利用了考古学和语言学来对雅利安——印欧人起源问题进行研究。她的假说将原始雅利安—原始印欧语使用者与东欧大草原的亚姆纳文化及其前身相联系，并将印欧人的原住地定位在东欧大草原，提出晚期原始印欧语的各种方言曾在这一地区被使用。假说并且认为该文化逐渐扩张直至占据整个的东欧大草原，最晚阶段的文化（“坟冢丁”）即为前3000年左右的亚姆纳文化。 

   坟冢文化的游牧性质使其得以扩张占据整个欧亚大草原地区，这一过程中对马的驯养及后期对（仍处于雏形的）战车的使用起重要作用。最早的有可信驯马证据的是位于今乌克兰的、亚速海北岸的斯莱德涅斯多格文化，它与前5000年的印欧前期文化对应。现已知最早的战车是在克利伏耶湖附近发现的，追溯至公元前约2000年。后来的论述者把中国的商朝战车甚至秦朝人也归类于这一文化的传播中。

根据雅利安人的坟冢起源假说：战车民族迁徙到中国

   接下来向大草原以外地区的扩张造成混合的、被金布塔斯称为“坟冢化”(kurganized)文化传播，如雅利安人的西迁（西部的双耳细颈椭圆尖底陶器文化Globular Amphora culture)，进而发生的则是约前2500年的原始希腊人(proto-Greeks)向巴尔干半岛以及游牧的印度-伊朗文化向东迁徙的过程。   但是，詹姆斯·马洛里认为印欧人向西的迁徙是无法被严格证实的。语言学家孔甫烈(Kortlandt)后来引用这一结果，认为考古学上的证据除了在与语言学综合分析尚有用途外，在用于研究印欧人的迁徙史方面是没有多少分量。］

根据这种虚拟和重建，欧洲历史学家不仅断言古印度、古波斯人那些黑发、黑眼睛、褐色皮肤的高加索人以及安纳托里亚的地中海人，与远在北欧的金发、多毛的白色人是亲戚，而且古代的希腊罗马人与他们所鄙视、仇视，看做讲鸟语的“蛮族日耳曼民族”——这两个彼此曾经浴血千年、世代为仇敌的民族现在也被说成原来是一脉相承的直系亲戚了。

这样一来，通过上述语言学的虚构，本身缺乏文明历史和传统的日耳曼蛮族（欧美白人的祖先），就找到了与西亚、埃及、波斯、印度、中国等繁荣的古代文明的血缘历史关系，欧亚大陆的全部古代文明都是雅利安—日耳曼种族所创造，雅利安—日耳曼民族理所当然是世界的主人。日耳曼民族对于其他种族的优越性和对于未来全人类建立统治的合法性，也就找到了合理的历史支点。

因此，西方人认为19世纪欧洲语言学最重大的成就即是对原始印欧语的虚假构拟。此后，这种假想语言理论迅速被欧洲人引入、移植到考古学和历史学中，假设和猜想变成了确信无疑的历史。印欧语的假设，当今已经成为西方主流历史学对世界历史、古代文明起源和西方文明起源的最根本的支柱理论。

所谓的雅利安人，据说是古代伊朗语族民族中的一支，后来演变为伊朗语族民族的一种宽泛的代称。但是必须指出，这种说法没有任何史书或者史料支持。西方人宣称：雅利安人分三支，东支进入新疆，就是吐火罗，大月氏，南支进入印度，事实上是进入了两次，一次是上古，一次是贵霜王朝。西支进入了两河流域，就是后来建立大名鼎鼎的波斯帝国的那些伊朗语部落的直系祖先。因此雅利安人包括了建立波斯帝国的波斯人，埃兰人，米底人；印度的高种姓白人，中国西部的吐火罗人，大月氏人，中亚的粟特人，古代中亚的花剌子模人（契丹王朝），阿兰人（也就是《汉书》中大名鼎鼎的的奄蔡人或者奥赛梯人）。

因此，通过虚构这种古代印欧语，雅利安语言不仅被认为是现时欧洲主要语系白种人诸语系统的共同祖先，而且也是那些古老的亚洲文明创造者——小亚细亚、波斯、印度、古代希腊和罗马人的原始语言，甚至也是中国早期王朝夏朝和商朝人的原始语言。换句话说，人类早期文明——特别是青铜文明和铁器文明，都被西方人认为是印欧语系的雅利安民族创造的，也就是欧洲民族——日耳曼民族的祖先所创造的。

但是实际上，原始印欧语的存在，从来就没有得到任何古代史料或者其他资料的证实。尽管如此，这丝毫没有阻碍欧洲学术界在19世纪勇敢地将所谓的原始印欧语的基本的发音和词汇，通过所谓比较语言学的比照法系统地重构——也就是伪造出来。西方共济会基金资助一批探险家（如伯希和等）在18——20世纪对中国西部、中亚和西亚进行了一系列考古和探险，那其实并非由于他们对我们的华夏文明有什么兴趣，而也是试图在此寻找雅利安人的存在和迁徙证据。

从17世纪至18世纪末，印欧语系的概念逐渐成型。据说，现代印欧语的很多词都是从某些“原始词”经过有规律的语音变化发展而来（比如格林定律）。尽管始终没有找到任何可信的实际语言证据，但是西方语言学界和历史学界仍然毫无困难地复原建构了统一的原始印欧语言模型，欧洲人声称世界上大约有439种语言和方言可以归入印欧语系统，根据2009年西方的民族语言估计，其中大约有一半（ 221种）被归类为所谓的印度—雅利安支系。

 因此，这种莫须有的雅利安语言已经包括几乎全部欧洲语言和欧亚大陆的大部分主要语言，特别是伊朗高原和印度次大陆以及古代的安纳托利亚语言，但就是不包括汉（藏？）语、突厥语、阿拉伯语、希伯来语（有趣的是犹太语言近年已被升格，正在被嫁接于雅利安语言），因为这是欧洲人（雅利安人？）眼中的下贱民族的语言。

19世纪中叶，由于法国人约瑟夫·戈宾诺伯爵（Comte de Gobineau）及其门徒张伯伦（Houston Stewart Chamberlain）的鼓吹，西方出现“雅利安主义”即“雅利安人种优越论”，声称“雅利安人种”成员就是讲印欧语言的人，他们是创造了人类一切文明的人，优越于闪米特人、黄种人以及黑种人。雅利安主义的信徒们认为，唯独北欧和日耳曼诸民族是最纯粹的“雅利安种”成员。这种理论后来就成为20世纪的纳粹帝国清洗人种政策的理论基石。

​【附录】西方构拟的原始印欧语分支：阿尔巴尼亚语安纳托利亚语族（消亡）亚美尼亚语波罗的-斯拉夫语族（波罗的和斯拉夫语族）凯尔特语族日耳曼语族希腊语印度-伊朗语族（伊朗和印度-雅利安语支）意大利语族（包括罗曼语族）吐火罗语（消亡）

【威廉姆·琼斯】Sir William Jones (28 September 1746 – 27 April 1794) was an Anglo-Welsh philologist and scholar of ancient India, particularly known for his proposition of the existence of a relationship among Indo-European languages. He, along with Henry Thomas Colebrooke and Nathaniel Halhed, founded the Asiatic Society of Bengal, and started a journal called ‘Asiatick Researches’.

William Jones was born in London at Beaufort Buildings, Westminster; his father (also named William Jones) was a mathematician from Anglesey in Wales, noted for devising the use of the symbol pi. The young William Jones was a linguistic prodigy, learning Greek, Latin, Persian, Arabic, Hebrew and the basics of Chinese writing at an early age.

Sir William Jones sometimes also went by the nom de plume Youns Uksfardi (???? ????????). This pen name can be seen on the inner front cover of his Persian Grammar published in 1771 (and in subsequent editions as well). The second half of the pen name, Uksfardi, Persian rendition of “from Oxford”, can be directly attributed to the deep attachment William Jones had for the University of Oxford. The first name Youns is a rendition of Jones.

Of all his discoveries, Jones is known today for making and propagating the observation that classical Greek and Latin seemed to have been derived from Sanskrit. In his Third Anniversary Discourse to the Asiatic Society (1786) he suggested that classical Greek and Latin had a common root and that the two may be further related, in turn, to Gothic and the Celtic languages, as well as to Persian.

Although his name is closely associated with this observation he was not the first to make it. In a memoir sent to the French Academy of Sciences in 1767 Gaston-Laurent Coeurdoux, a French Jesuit who spent all his life in India, demonstrated the existing analogy between Sanskrit, Latin, Greek and even German and Russian.

Jones’ third annual discourse before the Asiatic Society on the history and culture of the Hindus (delivered on 2 February 1786 and published in 1788) with the famed “philologer” passage is often cited as the beginning of comparative linguistics and Indo-European studies.

The Sanscrit language, whatever be its antiquity, is of a wonderful structure; more perfect than the Greek, more copious than the Latin, and more exquisitely refined than either, yet bearing to both of them a stronger affinity, both in the roots of verbs and the forms of grammar, than could possibly have been produced by accident; so strong indeed, that no philologer could examine them all three, without believing them to have sprung from some common source, which, perhaps, no longer exists; there is a similar reason, though not quite so forcible, for supposing that both the Gothic and the Celtic, though blended with a very different idiom, had the same origin with the Sanscrit; and the old Persian might be added to the same family.This common source came to be known as Proto-Indo-European.

Jones was the first to propose a racial division of India involving an Aryan invasion but at that time there was insufficient evidence to support it. It was an idea later taken up by British administrators such as Herbert Hope Risley but remains disputed today.

【弗朗兹·博普】Franz Bopp (September 14, 1791, Mainz – October 23, 1867, Berlin ) was a German linguist known for extensive comparative work on Indo-European languages .He was born at Mainz , but owing to the political disarray of the time, his parents moved to Aschaffenburg in Bavaria . There, he received a liberal education at the Lyceum, and Karl J. Windischmann drew his attention to the languages and literature of the East (Windischmann, along with Georg Friedrich Creuzer , Johann Joseph von G?rres , and the brothers Schlegel, expressed great enthusiasm for Indian wisdom and philosophy). Moreover, Friedrich Schlegel ’s book, ?ber die Sprache und Weisheit der Indier ( On the Speech and Wisdom of the Indians , Heidelberg, 1808), which had just begun to exert a powerful influence on the minds of German philosophers and historians, could not fail to stimulate also Bopp’s interest in the sacred language of the Hindus .

In 1812, he went to Paris at the expense of the Bavarian government, with a view to devoting himself vigorously to the study of Sanskrit . There he enjoyed the society of such eminent men as Antoine-Léonard de Chézy , Silvestre de Sacy , Louis Mathieu Langlès , and, above all, of Alexander Hamilton (1762–1824) [not the US statesman], who had acquired, when in India , an acquaintance with Sanskrit, and had brought out, along with Langlès, a descriptive catalogue of the Sanskrit manuscripts of the Imperial library. In the library, Bopp had access not only to the rich collection of Sanskrit manuscripts (mostly brought from India by Jean Fran?ois Pons in the early 18th century) but also to the Sanskrit books which had up to that time been issued from the Calcutta and Serampore presses.The first paper from his four years’ study in Paris appeared in Frankfurt am Main in 1816, under the title of ?ber das Conjugationssystem der Sanskritsprache in Vergleichung mit jenem der griechischen, lateinischen, persischen und germanischen Sprache ( On the Conjugation System of Sanskrit in comparison with that of Greek, Latin, Persian and Germanic ) (Windischmann contributed a preface). In this first book Bopp entered at once the path on which he would focus the philological researches of his whole subsequent life. He did not need to prove the common parentage of Sanskrit with Persian , Greek , Latin and German , for previous scholars had long established that; but he aimed to trace the common origin of those languages’ grammatical forms, of their inflections from composition – a task which no predecessor had attempted. By a historical analysis of those forms, as applied to the verb, he furnished the first trustworthy materials for a history of the languages compared.

【西方系统伪造的资料】关于雅利安—印欧语族各亚组的十个主要分支谱系：The various subgroups of the Indo-European language family include ten major branches, given in the chronological order of their earliest surviving written attestations:

Anatolian (Asia Minor), the earliest attested branch. Isolated terms in Luwian/Hittite mentioned in Semitic Old Assyrian texts from the 20th and 19th centuries BC, Hittite texts from about 1650 BC;[12][13] extinct by Late Antiquity.Hellenic. Fragmentary records in Mycenaean Greek from between 1450 and 1350 BC have been found.[14] Homeric texts date to the 8th century BC. (See Proto-Greek, History of Greek.)Indo-Iranian, circa 1400 BC, descended from Proto-Indo-Iranian (dated to the late 3rd millennium BC).Indo-Aryan or Indic languages, attested from around 1400 BC in Hittite texts from Asia Minor, showing traces of Indo-Aryan words.[15][16] Epigraphically from the 3rd century BC in the form of Prakrit (Edicts of Ashoka). The Rigveda is assumed to preserve intact records via oral tradition dating from about the mid-2nd millennium BC in the form of Vedic Sanskrit.Iranian, attested from roughly 1000 BC in the form of Avestan. Epigraphically from 520 BC in the form of Old Persian (Behistun inscription).DardicNuristani Italic, including Latin and its descendants (the Romance languages), attested from the 7th century BC.Celtic, descended from Proto-Celtic. Gaulish inscriptions date as early as the 6th century BC; Celtiberian from the 2nd century BC; Primitive Irish Ogham inscriptions 5th century AD, earliest inscriptions in Old Welsh from the 8th Century AD.Germanic (from Proto-Germanic), earliest testimonies in runic inscriptions from around the 2nd century AD, earliest coherent texts in Gothic, 4th century AD. Old English manuscript tradition from about the 8th century AD.Armenian. Alphabet writings known from the beginning of the 5th century AD.Tocharian, extant in two dialects (Turfanian and Kuchean), attested from roughly the 6th to the 9th century AD. Marginalized by the Old Turkic Uyghur Khaganate and probably extinct by the 10th century.Balto-Slavic, believed by most Indo-Europeanists to form a phylogenetic unit, while a minority ascribes similarities to prolonged language contact.Slavic (from Proto-Slavic), attested from the 9th century AD (possibly earlier; see Slavic runes), earliest texts in Old Church Slavonic.Baltic, attested from the 14th century AD; for languages attested that late, they retain unusually many archaic features attributed to Proto-Indo-European (PIE).Albanian, attested from the 14th century AD; Proto-Albanian likely evolved from Paleo-Balkan predecessors.In addition to the classical ten branches listed above, several extinct and little-known languages have existed:

Ill yrian — related to Messapian. Possibly related to Albanian.Venetic — close to Italic and possibly Continental Celtic.Liburnian — doubtful affiliation, features shared with Venetic, Illyrian and Indo-Hittite, significant transition of the Pre-Indo-European elements.Messapian — not conclusively deciphered.Phrygian — language of the ancient Phrygians, possibly close to Thracian, Armenian, Greek[citation needed].Paionian — extinct language once spoken north of Macedon.Thracian — possibly including Dacian.Dacian — possibly very close to Thracian.Ancient Macedonian — proposed relationships to Greek, Illyrian, Thracian, and Phrygian.Ligurian language — possibly close to or part of Celtic.Sicel - an ancient language spoken by the Sicels (Greek Sikeloi, Latin Siculi), one of the three indigenous (i.e., pre-Greek and pre-Punic) tribes of Sicily. Proposed relationship to Latin or proto-Ill yrian (Pre-Indo-European) at an earlier stage.Lusitanian — possibly related to (or part of) Celtic, Ligurian, or Italic.

Further information: Language familiesMembership of these languages in the Indo-European language family is determined by genetic relationships, meaning that all members are presumed descendants of a common ancestor, Proto-Indo-European. Membership in the various branches, groups and subgroups or Indo-European is also genetic, but here the defining factors are shared innovations among various languages, suggesting a common ancestor that split off from other Indo-European groups. For example, what makes the Germanic languages a branch of Indo-European is that much of their structure and phonology can so be stated in rules that apply to all of them. Many of their common features are presumed innovations that took place in Proto-Germanic, the source of all the Germanic languages.Scheme of Indo-European migrations from ca. 4000 to 1000 BC according to the Kurgan hypothesis.The Proto-Indo-European language (PIE) is the common ancestor of the Indo-European languages, spoken by the Proto-Indo-Europeans. From the 1960s, knowledge of Anatolian became certain enough to establish its relationship to PIE. Using the method of internal reconstruction an earlier stage, called Pre-Proto-Indo-European, has been proposed.

PIE was an inflected language, in which the grammatical relationships between words were signaled through inflectional morphemes (usually endings). The roots of PIE are basic morphemes carrying a lexical meaning. By addition of suffixes, they form stems, and by addition of desinences (usually endings), these form grammatically inflected words (nouns or verbs). The hypothetical Indo-European verb system is complex and, like the noun, exhibits a system of ablaut.