The UPenn IE Tree (the stem)

[Brian M. Scott]

X99Lynx at aol.com wrote:

> <<Actually, you're still clouding the issue of "innovating" versus
> "non-innovating" in order, it seems, to label nodes.>>

> No I'm not clouding anything.  That IS how the nodes are labeled in this
> tree, at least according to the way its been described.

This is incorrect:

<quote>

Date:         Fri, 13 Aug 1999 01:24:56 -0400
From:         Sean Crist <kurisuto at unagi.cis.upenn.edu>
Subject:      Re: The UPenn IE Tree

On Thu, 12 Aug 1999 X99Lynx at aol.com wrote:

[...]

> So here at this first juncture:

>                                     PIE
>                                    /   \
>                                   /   Anatolian

> Does this mean that PIE co-exists with Anatolian?  It would have to wouldn't
> it?

This is a question of terminology.  In strict terms, we could call this
something like proto-Tocharo-Italo-Celtico-Greco-Armenian-Balto-Slavic-
Germanic-Indo-Iranian.  When we're talking about this many undifferentiated
branches, such terminology is obviously unwieldy.  In more usable terms, we
would talk about "the innovations shared by all the IE branches except
Anatolian", etc.

</quote>

Note that already mention is made of innovations resulting in the
unnamed node at the bottom of the left-hand branch.

> There are a limited number of innovations indicated on that tree.  They are
> apparently the only ones relevant to what the tree is illustrating - the
> supposed chronological "relatedness" of the languages.

As I understand the algorithm, a binary character that has one value in
Anatolian and the other in everything else would contribute to the
branching shown above irrespective of whether both values, the Anatolian
value, or the other value is an innovation with respect to PIE.  The
tree does not directly show innovations at all.

> The latest answer to this point is I believe that both lines coming out of
> the node can be considered innovating.  That's convenient, but
> chronologically absurd.  Unless both happened on the same day, the diagramm
> should show a branch off a branch, illustrating a significant
> innovation/divergence in the "proto-language" - the stem.

Innovations don't happen in a day, and none of the nodes can be pinned
to a moment in time; presumably the forks (to the extent that they
represent historical fact) are the result of gradual divergence.  You're
asking for either an impossible (even meaningless) level of
chronological detail or a non-branching node, which so far as I can see
is incompatible with the algorithm.

Brian M. Scott