Reconstructing PIE terms for kinship and marriage

Abstract

Since Delbrück, linguists have been in general agreement that PIE kinship was patriarchal, patriarcal, and patrilineal, with the exception of Marxist scholars, whose arguments are generally dismissed. Debate has centered on Delbrück's classification of PIE kinship as “Omaha”, supported by many but contested by some. Although etymons for ‘marriage’, ‘husband’, and ‘wife’ cannot be found, the secondary creations found in IE languages are taken as evidence for the antiquity of marriage and the superiority of the husband over the wife. When terms for the wife's relatives are absent, that absence is said to support the patrilocal hypothesis; when present, as in Latin nepos and avunculus, the terms are cited as evidence of the Roman pater potestas. Terms for uterine kinship are likewise ignored or explained away, and possible implications of matriliny hotly denied. But it is equally possible that the uniformity of PIE patriarchy is in part due to the tendency to level out distinctions as one reconstructs—in linguistic paleontology as in comparative phonological reconstruction—and in part due to researcher bias. Terms for uterine kinship and for the avunculate typical of fratrilineal kinship, and the lack of universal cognates for marriage, suggest this may be the case.