1-Mavzu Roman -german tillarining dunyo

Russian	Old	Sanskrit	Greek	Latin
Gothic
Slavonic berut	berot	bharanti	pheronti	ferunt	bairand

This example shows that the endings -ut, -Qt, -anti, -onti, -unt, -and are equivalent and come from the same source.
The importance of grammatical criteria is that words can be borrowed, but grammatical forms cannot.
As far as the meaning of the reconstructed words is concerned, they need not coincide exactly; they can diverge according to the laws of polysemy, as the following example shows:

Sanskrit	Kravis	Russian	Krov'
Greek	Kreas	Old High	Hreo
		German
Latin	Cruor	Anglo-Saxon	Hra
Lithuanian	Kraujas	English	raw
Old Slavonic	Krbvb

On the basis of these forms, it can be assumed that in the Indo-European parent language there was a root *"kreu" which could assume different, though related, meanings ht all these languages: "blood" in Russian, "meat" in Greek, "raw" in English.
Correct reconstruction helps us to understand the real etymology of words. We can confidently reconstruct the words in the parent language for "brother" and "sister" as *bhriiter and *s{jeso(r). In the former, the first element bhrii-was a gradational variant of the verbal root *bher-"to bear", "to carry". The second morpheme was, of course, the same -ter as in *pa-ter. In *s{je-sor the first component was the reflexive element meaning "one's own", and the second signified "female", seen also in Latin uxor or uksor "wife".
These short excursions into etymology should be enough to show the fascination of this research.
Engels appreciated the importance of the comparative method in the study of languages. He showed that "substance and form of one's own language, however, only became intelligible when their origin and gradual evolution are traced, and this cannot be done without taking into account, first, their own extinct forms, and secondly, allied languages, both living and dead."
This important statement is of great significance for a proper understanding of the essence of the comparative method in linguistics. This method has been justified by discoveries made in the 19th century. On the basis of the comparative method it was suggested that the Latin nouns ager "tillage", and sacer "sacred" originated from the reconstructed forms *agros and *sakros. In 1899 a document was found in Rome dating from the 6th century A. D. in which the suggested form sakros was found.
Some original forms calculated by eminent linguists in the 19th century by comparative method were discovered in the Hittite language in the north east of Asia Minor at Boghazkoy on the site of the prehistoric capital Hattusas, about eighty miles east of Ankara. Some cuneiform tablets in the Hittite language, discovered in Boghazkoy in Asia Minor, were translated by the Czechoslovak scholar Bedrich Hrozny in December, 1915, who proved its linguistic affinity with Indo-European. A revolution was also affected in early Greek studies by the discovery in 1939 of clay tablets at Pylos in Messenia which were deciphered by Michael Ventris in 1952. This meant putting back the beginning of recorded Greek to a time long before Homer, perhaps as early as 1500 B. C.
It was suggested long ago with the help of the comparative method that the Greek words aichme "spear" and artoko6pos "baker" arose from the forms *aiksmii and *artopokwos. This was confirmed by the recently deciphered Krito-Micenian inscriptions.
The comparative method has been thoroughly applied to the reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European, Proto-Romance, Proto-Germanic, Proto-Celtic, and Proto- Slavonic. Rather Less thorough use of the method has been made in reconstructing Proto-Semitic, Proto-Finno-Ugric, and Proto-Bantu. Work is well under way on the Malayo-Polynesian languages, Algonquian, and several other groups.
As we have stated, the comparison of languages which are believed to have been dialects of one language in the past, is done by what is known as the comparative method.
There is, however, another method of reconstructing the previous stages of a language when neither older texts nor related languages are known. A suitable term for this method is internal reconstruction, the theoretical foundation of which lies partly in synchronic, partly in diachronic linguistics. Synchronic linguistics (from the Greek syn "wi th" and chronos "time", IE. simultaneity) deals with the study of language at the present moment, while diachronic linguistics (from the Greek dia "through" and chronos "time", IE. of continuous time) concerns the study of language in its historical development.
In the last decade the method of glottochronology has sprung up, better known as the Lexicostatistic method, which envisages the measurement of linguistic change, particularly of the ages of language families without documented histories.
The basic premise of glottochronology is the fact that the basic vocabulary of human language tends to be replaced at a constant rate throughout its development. This approach is based on the principle stated by E. Sapir who said that the greater the degree of linguistic differentiation within the group, the greater was the period of time that must be assumed for the development of such differentiation.
If we could measure the degree of differentiation of two related languages, this would show the relative Length of time that they had been diverging from their common ancestor: it would be glottochronology (from Greek glotta "language" and chronos "time").
The glottochronological method involves three principle variables: the rate of retention, the period of time and the proportion of coinciding test list equivalents in two languages that are related.
The formula for finding the rate of retention is t=log c ^ log r in which t=the period of time between two stages of a language, c=the proportion of common forms, and r=the rate of retention. With this formula, it was found that the rate of retention is approximately 80 per cent per thousand years.