The UPenn IE Tree (the stem)

[Richard M. Alderson III]

On 5 Sep 1999, Steve Long 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.  (Otherwise, Graeco-Armenian is innovating
>away from Italo-Celtic.)  So, node after node, there is a language that does
>not innovate.  Left over for the next node to innovate away from.

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.

In this case, the branch you want to see as somehow stem-like is the innovator.

Another example, taken from Watkins' _How to Kill a Dragon_:  One phrase
recurrent in religious texts in Indo-Iranian and Italic is reconstructed as

	*pah2- *wiHro- *peku- "protect men (and) cattle"

In Indo-Iranian, the verb *pah2- is replaced by the synonym *tra:- "protect";
in Indic specifically, *wiHro- is replaced by an alliterative synonym,
_puruS.a-_.  In Italic, the verb is replaced by the phrase _*salwa *seru-_
"keep safe"; in Latin specifically, *wiHro- is replaced by the alliterative
_pastores_ "shepherds", a derivative of the root *pah2-.

Which of these two is closer to the prototype?

								Rich Alderson