The UPenn IE Tree (the stem)

[X99Lynx at aol.com]

I wrote:
<<That is the way this tree is set up.  Whatever is "innovating" gets a node
and a name.  But there is always a non-innovating language left over, for the
next node to innovate way from.>>

In a message dated 9/10/99 2:59:15 AM, you wrote:

<<Well, no.  Not necessarily.  For example, there are those who would see the
Hittite verb system ("mi" vs. "hi", both forming presents and preterites) as
original, and the rest of Indo-European as innovating away from that system to
the Brugmannian three-way distinction of "present" vs. "aorist" vs. "perfect",
the endings of the latter corresponding to the preterite of the Hittite "hi"
conjugation in form but not in meaning.>>

Yes.  Larry Trask and Jens also mentioned the Schwundhypothese.

But I'm pretty sure (I may be wrong) that in the Stammbaum the 'innovations'
considered always attach to the node or branch.  That was the way it was
described in the first posts on all this - with the branch representing the
"unshared innovation."  Also I don't think the Stammbaum approach can
recognize anything as sophisticated as changing verb systems.  Based on
what's been said so far, at least.

Regards,
Steve Long