37.228, Reviews: The Indo-European Language Family: Thomas Olander (ed.) (20250417)

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-37-228. Sat Jan 17 2026. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 37.228, Reviews: The Indo-European Language Family: Thomas Olander (ed.) (20250417)

Moderator: Steven Moran (linguist at linguistlist.org)
Managing Editor: Valeriia Vyshnevetska
Team: Helen Aristar-Dry, Mara Baccaro, Daniel Swanson
Jobs: jobs at linguistlist.org | Conferences: callconf at linguistlist.org | Pubs: pubs at linguistlist.org

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

Editor for this issue: Helen Aristar-Dry <hdry at linguistlist.org>

================================================================


Date: 17-Jan-2026
From: Jean-François R. Mondon [jfmondon at gmail.com]
Subject: Thomas Olander (ed.) (20250417)


Book announced at https://linguistlist.org/issues/36-1608

Title: The Indo-European Language Family
Publication Year: 20250417

Publisher: Cambridge University Press
           http://www.cambridge.org/linguistics
Book URL:
https://www.cambridge.org/us/universitypress/subjects/languages-linguistics/historical-linguistics/indo-european-language-family?format=PB&isbn=9781108731522#about-the-authors

Editor(s): Thomas Olander

Reviewer: Jean-François R. Mondon

SUMMARY
“The Indo-European Language Family: A Phylogenetic Perspective” offers
an up-to-date evaluation of computational approaches as well as
traditional approaches to the subgrouping of the Indo-European (IE)
family tree. Following an introductory chapter, the volume begins with
three chapters which deal with subgrouping at large. They tackle
questions ranging from ‘what can necessitate the postulation of a
subgroup?’ to ‘what are the strengths and shortcomings of employing
algorithms?’ The book then moves onto specific IE branches (or
potential branches in the case of Italo-Celtic) with each chapter
focusing on the innovations that strengthen the validity of the
particular subbranch under discussion as well as that branch’s
relations to other nodes of the family tree.
In the introductory chapter (pgs. 1-17) the volume’s editor, Thomas
Olander, describes the contributions of the book as “an attempt at
reinvigorating the traditional methodology, which, outside of
Indo-European studies, seems to be losing ground to computationally
based analysis” (p. 3). The two approaches, traditional and
computational, are in fact not at odds. The latter can be of great
benefit by exponentially accelerating the time required to work
through time-consuming projections. However, without an understanding
of the differing quality of the data which come from the former
method, computational approaches to phylogeny are null and void.
James Clackson begins his chapter, “Methodology in Linguistic
Subgrouping” (pgs. 18-32), by outlining the history of attempts at
determining the branching of the IE family. He then delves into the
important question of what criteria can be employed to ascertain
subgrouping within a family tree. While he deems shared innovations as
being paramount to the enterprise, he correctly points out that two
issues remain. On the one hand, what is termed a morphological
innovation is “to some extent reliant on the picture the researcher
has of the morphology of the parent language” (p. 23). On the other
hand, how many shared innovations are required to be confident that
two languages formed a subbranch? This latter question is also
dependent upon the researcher. Additionally, there are not always
objective means to decide whether a common, repeatable innovation is
shared between two languages and is not either an independent process
in the respective histories of each or the result of convergence
induced by contact between the two.
In “Computational Approaches to Linguistic Chronology and Subgrouping”
(pgs. 33-51), Dariusz Piwowarczyk traces the history of computational
methods in linguistic phylogeny. The advantage of using algorithms is
their ability to handle large amounts of data in a very short amount
of time. Nonetheless, while the approach affords gains on handling a
large quantity of data, it does not necessarily improve the quality of
the data. The quality of the data is only as good as the researcher
who created it. One recent striking example of this dichotomy is the
work of Pyysalo (2017), whose achievements on formulating hypotheses
on relative chronologies are marred by his employing idiosyncratic
reconstructions which are at odds with the communis opinio of the
field.
Don Ringe explores the limits of computational work on determining the
structure of linguistic trees in “What We Can (and Can’t) Learn from
Computational Cladistics” (pgs. 52-62). While computational techniques
can work through very large data sets, the size of which would
necessitate human lifetimes to wade through by hand, it is beset by
problems. A major shortcoming is its inability to treat
diversification that was not treelike, such as in cases of extreme
borrowing. Ringe concludes that the evidence yielded from
computational cladistics “must be used in conjunction with traditional
methods, archaeology, ancient DNA evidence and everything else that
might be relevant” (p. 61).
In Chapter 5, “Anatolian” (pgs. 63-82),  Alwin Kloekhorst presents the
earliest attested branch of IE. After a thorough summary of the levels
of documentation of each language from the richly attested Hittite to
the sparsely documented Sidetic, Kloekhorst lays out the data
indicating that Anatolian forms its own branch. Noticeable
morphological innovations include the 1st plural ending *-wen(i)
cognate with the Proto-Indo-European dual ending *-we, as well as the
loss of the subjunctive and optative moods. Additionally, the lexical
shared innovation of a lateral in the root for ‘name’ (Hittite la:man)
is quite striking. One morphological innovation which Kloekhorst
lists, however, does not bear the communis opinio; namely, the
derivation of the infamous hi-conjugation from the perfect (cf.
Eichner (1975), Risch (1975). While seeing links between the two sets
of endings, Jasanoff (2003), for instance, explicitly argues against
the direct derivation of one from the other. With respect to the
internal diversification of the Anatolian family, Kloekhorst touches
on the Luwic branch, which consists of Cuneiform Luwian and
Hieroglyphic Luwian, and he also touches on the specific relationship
of this branch to Palaic. Despite its sharing some similarities to the
Luwic branch, Kloekhorst ultimately rejects including Palaic, since it
does not participate in assibilation of Proto-Anatolian *k’, nor show
reflexes of the nominative plural common ending *-Vnsi. Rather, he
proposes it shares a higher node with Luwic.
Michaël Peyrot wades into the two Tocharian languages in Chapter 6
(pgs. 83-101). He acknowledges the claims of a third Tocharian
language, but assessing the support for the claim to be very
uncertain, he does not include it in the subsequent discussion. The
two languages share several defining characteristics including their
nearly complete loss of prefixing morphology and the rise of
agglutinative nominal endings, the latter possibly a result of Uralic
influence. Internally neither of the two Tocharian languages can be
derived from the other, both instead stemming from an unattested
parent language, Common Tocharian. With respect to the Indo-European
family, Tocharian has often been proposed as having been the second
branch to break away from the proto-language, a hypothesis which
Peyrot concludes “seems attractive, but evidence is slim” (p. 90).
Michael Weiss discusses Italo-Celtic and Italic in Chapters 7 (pgs.
102-13) and 8 (pgs. 114-34) respectively. In the former chapter Weiss
does an able job reviewing the well-known phonological and
morphological data that have been utilized by other scholars to argue
for the existence of the Italo-Celtic subbranch. The *-i: genitive,
Weiss points out, must have been an independent innovation since the
inherited ending *-osyo is attested in Faliscan on the Italic side
(euotenosio) and a variation of it is attested in Lepontic on the
Celtic side (-oiso). Weiss’ discussion of the a:-subjunctive is
judicious, as he acknowledges the advantage of Kim McCone’s (1991)
uniting the Old Irish a- and s-subjunctives with each other to the
exclusion of the Italic a-subjunctive. However, he points out the
clear disadvantage; namely, that s-aorist subjunctives built to
laryngeal-final roots, which per McCone developed into *-ase- in
Celtic on its way ultimately to the a-subjunctive, is a category which
is sparsely attested elsewhere in IE. After listing a few purportedly
shared lexical items, Weiss concludes that, “whether one recognizes an
Italo-Celtic node or not, the fact remains that Italic shares more
innovative features with Celtic than with any other branch” (p. 108).
Moving onto Italic, Weiss reinforces the existence of the branch
contra some earlier scholars (e.g. Walde (1917) and Devoto (1929)),
who wished to treat Latin as an IE branch separate from the Sabellic
languages, whose principal representatives are Oscan and Umbrian.
Weiss emphasizes that morphological innovations such as the gerundive
(Latin -ndo- and Sabellic *-nno) and imperfect subjunctive morpheme
*-se:- (e.g. Oscan fusi:d and Latin’s post-rhotacism foret) make it
unavoidable to argue against a shared history. He concludes the
chapter by discussing potential links with other IE branches, which
all tend to be lexical. With Germanic Italic shares *dwisno- ‘double’,
built by adding the suffix *-no- to the multiplicative *dwis ‘twice’,
reflexes including Latin bi:ni: ‘two at a time’ and Old English
ge-twinn ‘twin.’ With Anatolian Italic shares a trifecta of
similarities (Melchert 2016, Puhvel 1994) including the lexical item
Hittite kappu:we/a- ‘count’ and Latin computa:re ‘to reckon’.
Anders Richardt Jørgensen in his chapter on Celtic (pgs. 135-51) does
not come down conclusively one way or another on the central quagmire
of whether Brittonic formed a subbranch with Goidelic or with Gaulish.
He lists potential Gallo-Brittonic innovations such as an expanded
Joseph’s Law (*oRa > *aRa as in Middle Welsh taran ‘thunder’ and the
Gaulish personal name Taranis as opposed to Old Irish torann
‘thunder’) and the thematization of feminine consonant stems (e.g.
root noun *brig[x]-s yielding Old Irish bri: ‘hill’ whereas Middle
Welsh bre and the Gaulish placename element -briga presuppose
*brig-a:). Citing Sims-Williams (2007), he points out that a dialect
continuum is possible, which could account for shared features of
Goidelic and Brittonic, such as their infamous absolute/conjunct
distinction in the verb. While the specifics of the relations between
these Celtic languages are unclear, Jørgensen does state “it seems
fairly clear that Celtiberian should be contrasted with the more
northern varieties” (p. 143). Celtiberian did not partake of the
creation of the uninflected enclitic relative particle *yo,
maintaining fully inflected forms instead. Additionally, Celtiberian
innovated an o-stem genitive singular in -o whose origin is opaque.
The volume pivots to Germanic in Bjarne Simmelkjær Sandgaard Hansen
and Guss Jan Kroonen’s chapter (pgs. 152-72). While the three branches
(East, West, and North) are fairly clear, whether two of these form a
higher node is not as transparent. Hansen and Kroonen rule out linking
East and West together despite the derivational nominal suffix
*-Vssu-, since they “share no linguistic innovations that are not also
shared by North Germanic” (p. 158). They point out that a North-East
link comes down to Verschärfung, the process of turning the glides
into stops (*-yy- > Gothic -ddj- and Old Norse -ggj- as well as *-ww-
> Gothic -ggw- and Old Norse -ggv-). The process finds approximate
parallels in Faroese, however, and thus it could in theory have
occurred independently in both branches. A North-West branch has the
strongest support with up to twenty shared innovations, not all of
which appear trivial, such as the replacement of reduplication in
strong verbs by a secondary diphthong (Old Norse le:t ‘let’ and Old
High German liaz versus Gothic lailot which retains reduplication). A
dialect continuum of course is also a possibility (Agee 2021), as they
discuss.
Lucien van Beek’s chapter on Greek (pgs. 173-201) is lush with
dialectical information. After presenting multiple dozens of
innovations shared by all Greek dialects, he dives into the difficult
question of the internal branching of the Greek dialects. He largely
favors the conclusions of Risch (1955, 1965), positing a South v.
North Greek split, the former splintering into Achaean and
Attic-Ionic, the latter into Aeolic and West Greek. Shared features
between Aeolic and South Greek he ascribes to contact. With respect to
Greek’s relationship to other IE language families, he notes that
Greek is clearly closest to Phrygian, which is all the more striking
“given the fragmentary attestation of Phrygian” (p. 191). He sides
with Kim (2018) in the vexed question of whether a Greco-Armenian
branch existed, largely dismissing the connection, as its evidence is
restricted to root cognations and not full lexical equations, let
alone unique morphological developments.
Birgit Anette Olsen and Rasmus Thorsø offer a data-rich chapter on
Armenian (pgs. 202-22). Contra the conclusion in van Beek’s chapter,
Olsen and Thorsø support the view that Armenian did form a subbranch
with Greek. They view certain morphological innovations tied to
specific lexical items (e.g. a nu-causative to *wes- ‘dress’;
reduplicated aorist *ar-ar-e/o-; a reduplicated present stem to
*selh2-) as not being negligible.
Albanian, the latest attested of the Indo-European languages, is the
topic of the article authored by Adam Hyllested and Brian Joseph (pgs.
223-45). After providing an overview of Albanian’s potential links to
every other branch of the family, Hyllested and Joseph conclude that a
link with Greek is the most compelling. In addition to several
connections in verbal and nominal formation, Albanian shares with
Greek the morphological distinction of employing active endings in
past non-active paradigms (e.g. Greek aorist passive eplu-the:-n ‘I
was washed’ with the same ending -n seen in the active imperfect
epluno-n ‘I was washing’; Albanian u lav-a ‘I was washed’ with the
same -a as in active lav-a ‘I washed’). Messapic, however, as they
acknowledge, is likely closer still, but due to a paucity of material
in the language, that conclusion can remain only speculative at best.
Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic, arguably the two most secure
subbranches of the IE family, are the topics of the volume’s final two
chapters. Martin Kümmel treats Indo-Iranian (pgs. 246-68), which is
separated from the rest of the family by a few unique morphological
elements, including a 3rd pl. middle desinence *-ró- (vs. *-nt-
elsewhere), the 2nd pl. perfect ending *-a, and the preservation in
Iranian of distinct dual endings in the genitive and locative. The
first change, however, as Kümmel correctly points out, cannot be used
as evidence for an early separation of Indo-Iranian away from the rest
of the family, since the details of the other branches do not agree.
Branch-internally Kümmel seems open to accepting Nuristanic as a third
shoot of the subfamily, since “the differences from Indo-Aryan are
strong enough” for it be viewed as a unique third branch (p. 255).
Tijmen Pronk covers Balto-Slavic (pgs. 269-92) outlining the ample
phonological and morphological evidence pointing to the existence of
the subbranch. Regarding the question of the position of East Baltic,
he sides with Kortlandt (2018) in viewing it potentially as an
intermediary between West Baltic and Slavic. This works if “the
dissolution of Balto-Slavic could be seen as a gradual process with
increasing dialectal differences” (p. 279). Purported shared features
with Germanic or Indo-Iranian, Pronk concludes, are not strong enough
to support a larger subbranch of which Balto-Slavic was a part.
The volume concludes with a six-page topic index
EVALUATION
This volume is a welcome addition to any Indo-Europeanist’s library as
it drills down deep into a topic not consistently touched on nor as
deeply covered in introductory books (e.g. Fortson 2010, Meier-Brügger
& Fritz 2021). Despite none of the authors proposing any
ground-breaking analysis or introducing new hitherto unknown
information, the volume serves a useful function in bringing together
the data and scholarly citations for anyone interested in approaching
any subbranch in more detail. This value is not lessened even if one
disagrees with the stance taken by an author with respect to internal
branching. Additionally, the book’s open access on Cambridge Core
makes it within easy reach of anyone.
REFERENCES
Agee, Joshua. 2021. Using historical glottometry to subgroup the early
Germanic languages. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 33: 319-57.
Devoto, Giacomo. 1929. Italo-greco e italo-celtico. Archivio
glottologico Italiano 22/23. 200-40.
Eichner, Heiner. 1975. Die Vorgeschichte des hethitischen
Verbalsystem. In Helmut Rix (ed.), Flexion und Wortbildung: Akten der
V. Fachtaagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft. Regensburg, 9.-14.
September 1975, 71-103. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Fortson, Benjamin. 2010. Indo-European language and culture: an
introduction. Malden, WA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Jasanoff, Jay. 2003. Hittite and the Indo-European verb. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Kim, Ronald. 2018. Greco-Armenian: the persistence of a myth.
Indogermanische Forschungen 123: 247-71.
Kortlandt, Frederik. 2018. Proto-Bsaltic? Baltistica 53: 175-85.
McCone, Kim. 1991. The Indo-European origins of the Old Irish nasal
presents, subjunctives, and futures. Innsbruck: Institut für
Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck.
Meier-Brügger, Michael and Matthias Fritz. 2021. Indogermanische
Sprachwissenschaft10. Berling: de Gruyter.
Melchert. H. Craig. 2016. Western affinities of Anatolian. In Bjarne
Simmelkjær Sandgaard Hansen et al. (eds), Etymology and the European
lexicon, 297-305. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Puhvel, Jaan. 1994. West-Indo-European affinities of Anatolian. In
George Dunkel et al. (eds.), Früh-, Mittel-, Spätindogermanisch,
315-24. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Pyysalo, Jouna. 2017. Proto-Indo-European lexicon: The generative
etymological dictionary of Indo-European languages. In Jörg Tiedemann
& Nina Tahmasebi (eds.), Proceedings of the 21st Nordic Conference of
Computational Linguistics, 259-62. Linköping University Electronic
Press.
Ramat, Anna Giacalone and Paolo Ramat. 1998. The Indo-European
Languages.
Risch, Ernst. 1955. Die Gliederung der griechischen Dialekte in neuer
Sicht. Museum Helveticum 12. 61-76.
Risch, Ernst, 1965. Il problema dell’unità linguistica greca. In B.E.
Vidos (ed), Le protolingue, 91-109. Milan: Paideia.
Risch, Ernst. 1975. Zur Entstehung des hethitischen Verbalparadigmas.
In Helmut Rix (ed.), Flexion und Wortbildung: Akten der V. Fachtaagung
der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft. Regensburg, 9.-14. September 1975,
247-58. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Sims-Williams, Patrick. 2007. Studies on the Celtic languages before
the year 1000. Aberystwyth: CMCS.
Walde, Alois. 1917. Über älteste sprachliche Beziehung zwischen Kelten
und Italikern. Innsbruck: Wagner.
ABOUT THE REVIEWER
Jean-François Mondon is an Associate Professor of Global Studies at
Muskingum University in New Concord, Ohio. He is the author of
introductory textbooks on Classical Armenian, Middle Welsh, and Latin,
and of a few articles using Distributed Morphology to tackle certain
problematic data in Breton and Old Irish.



------------------------------------------------------------------------------

********************** LINGUIST List Support ***********************
Please consider donating to the Linguist List, a U.S. 501(c)(3) not for profit organization:

https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=87C2AXTVC4PP8

LINGUIST List is supported by the following publishers:

Bloomsbury Publishing http://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/

Cambridge University Press http://www.cambridge.org/linguistics

Cascadilla Press http://www.cascadilla.com/

De Gruyter Brill https://www.degruyterbrill.com/?changeLang=en

Edinburgh University Press http://www.edinburghuniversitypress.com

John Benjamins http://www.benjamins.com/

Language Science Press http://langsci-press.org

Lincom GmbH https://lincom-shop.eu/

MIT Press http://mitpress.mit.edu/

Multilingual Matters http://www.multilingual-matters.com/

Narr Francke Attempto Verlag GmbH + Co. KG http://www.narr.de/

Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics / Landelijke (LOT) http://www.lotpublications.nl/

Peter Lang AG http://www.peterlang.com


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-37-228
----------------------------------------------------------