 Thank you, Nathan. Thank you very much for the invitation. So I switch gears a little bit back from a lot of phonology to a lot of morphology. Here's some preliminaries concerning morphology and subgrouping, basically my talk here. So the major advances of Indo-European historical comparative linguistics in the last 50 years were made in the morphological internal reconstruction of the pre or proto-Indo-European nominal and verbal system. Maybe not accidentally due to progress in and in cooperation of the understanding of the two major branches discovered 100 years ago, namely Anatolian and Tocharian, which will figure more prominently in a minute, and I'm a Tochariologist and always strive for making Tocharian great again. So this will of course figure here prominently. And maybe not accidentally due to progress in incorporation of general linguistics and understanding of historical linguistics concerning these advances in the last 50 years. Compared to other traditions and other historical linguistic family traditions like Semitic historical comparative linguistics, Indo-European linguistics is a bit of a late bloomer concerning higher order subgrouping that is subgrouping above the level of the tested daughter languages and basically between this level and the proto-Indo-European level. Today I think that's kind of fair to say only proto-Indo-Ranian as a higher note is completely uncontroversial. Though this is also fair to say a systematic reconstruction of proto-Indo-Ranian is still in its early stages and I think Martin Kümmel is working on a book on the reconstruction of proto-Indo-Ranian and this is another caveat concerning Indo-Ranian. There are of course issues with the status of the Nouristani languages and the exact affiliation of sub branches within the Iranian part of the family and we will hear about Nouristani at this conference. So if you looked or look at current handbooks you basically you kind of get this big bang tree, everything out of Indo-European all at once which of course cannot be possible and which is kind of strange and we are one of the historical fields that still get away with presenting our tree like this and we should not get away with it. The underdevelopment of subgrouping in Indo-European I should really be able to pronounce that is due to several factors. One is a long-term focus on archaeasms rather than on shared innovations, a focus on lexical items rather than on shared non-trivial innovations in the morphology and a negligence toward the reconstruction of the immediate ancestors of the tested daughter languages of a branch. We already talked a little bit about Indo-Ranian but for example in my specialty we have not even really started to systematically reconstruct the morphology of Proto-Tukerian. We're basically in the process of doing this. But this negligence of course is not negligence because some people don't want to do it but partly also some fields like Anatolian and Tukerian saw rapid development in their understanding the philology in the linguistics and these new discoveries are just in need of incorporation into our reconstructions. Okay so the sub-branching that has been proposed of course figured very prominently or Anatolian figured very prominently in this because it is very different from the other languages and it has become widely accepted that this otherness of Anatolian otherness where in verbal morphology so rarity of so-called simple thematic presence these are basically presence that are formed with an uploading OA, lack of perfect as we see in in Indian and Greek for example then in nominal morphology lack of feminine gender so there's no feminine gender in Anatolian and a very important lack of participles with fixed diethesis built on the tense spectral stems that at least Greek and the oldest Vedic have and so this otherness as we just examined in this sub-groups of linguistics of Anatolian is due to its Anatolian branching of first. In this scenario the other languages share a common ancestor so basically what we get is Prolindropian and Anatolian splitting of first and then whatever comes next and the different different people call this stage with different names and I will also have one later so we'll come to it. Yes now growing camp over the last 20 years or so that takes Taukarian the other language that was kind of recently discovered and almost at the same time as the Anatolian languages also well split of early and split of second after Anatolian and the arguments for this are quite similar to the ones found in Anatolian so lexical archaeisms so we did not have that and these will go eventually. Bubble morphology again rarity of simple thematic presence lack of perfect in the nominal morphology otherness of the feminine morphology and lack of participles with fixed diethesis built on tense aspect stamps so basically what these people who proposed that Taukarian split the first thing is we have Prolindropian and Anatolian whatever you call this then Taukarian and then what I think is now almost established in in the European with sub branching that has not been figured out yet but with the other languages coming after Taukarian has split off. Okay so what to do I follow or try to follow Mark Hale here since the reconstruction of in the European was done without much in the way of higher order subgroups and since the precise characterization of the inflectional properties of individual nouns and verbs at the in the European rather than the Prolindropian stage and of classes of nouns and verbs and of the system as a whole is a task which has to be which has not been seriously undertaken at this point I think it's necessary to start to systematically trace the evolution of individual morphemes and the morphosyntactic features and systems of morphemes and their morphosyntactic features regarding shared non-trivial morphological innovations and in the following the focus will be on the participial system of in the European and how Anatolian and Taukarian fit into this. Participants as we saw already have been in the discussion and Anatolian does not have anything like the other languages and for Taukarian this was also proposed. Then the association of nominal morphemes of participial morphology with the verbal system can be considered I think non-trivial innovation and therefore potentially lead to new insights in the understanding of the evolution of both nominal and verbal systems in the European languages generally and regarding of course subgrouping. Okay so these are our participles in what I term here uh brookmanian in the european uh brookman wrote the great grondries of the european languages so the system of reconstruction before Anatolian and Taukarian was discovered. My former teacher JJ Asimov in a recent paper wrote and I like this expression the ink on the grondries was not yet dry and then suddenly they discovered Anatolian and Taukarian and basically the whole grondries would have had to be remodeled but it wasn't. Anyway so we start with the brookmanian system here here are morphemes these are participles in a strict sense and this year especially the Tau is the verbal adjective. The ont is associated with morphologically active verbs it shows upload and the morphosyntax is basically the same morphosyntax than the associated verb has. Mkhno is the mediopassive participle non-uploading and again morphosyntax associated with the verb and mediopassive means that it is associated with finite verbs that are mediopassive and then we have the was-us-perfect which is uploading it is associated with finite perfect and again the morphosyntax depends or is exactly the same as with the finite verbs they're associated with and then Tau basically also non-uploading of the adjective that kind of has stative semantics. So if we look here well this distinction is not really important but I just wanted to to give it anyways so that a thematic thematic distinction is not super important for what is to come but anyway a thematic just means no uploading or eval and thematic means an uploading or eval in the finite verbs and no no upload in the presence. So I give you Vedic in greek as the classical group manian in european languages and these are always a cognate right so Dharant is a direct correspondent of Tidus, Barant is a direct correspondent of Pheron, I have a pointer, Jant is a direct correspondent of Ion, Sravant is a direct correspondent of Rion. So they are super nicely cognate okay. Then let's look at Muchno and here I just took the mediopassive versions of the cited verbs before so Dadana is secretly the manna but with some sound changes but anyway direct cognate with the dominoes, Baramana direct cognate with Pheromenos and here these are just blank because they are not attested but Rio has a mediopassive Rion and we saw Rion as the normal active participle and here we see Rio Menos as the middle participle. Then here are wass suffix or perfect participle, here are just the third singular corresponding perfect forms so cagara from the root gar, egregora from the verb egero and we get participle, cigarvas and greek egregoras okay and which I somehow humoristically translated as walk. Okay and now we turn to the top participle and here a distinction of actions art of lexical aspect becomes important why that you will see in a minute in Anatolian so non-stative here are lexical aspect and the differentiation so this differentiation will become important in a minute but anyway we get Peter from Pa, Potos from Pino, Stita from Starr, Statos from Histimi and the completely nicely cognate, Gata from Ga, Batos from Baino completely cognate okay good if we look at the evidence of all the bookmanian-indrupian languages we basically see some that behave very nicely but the fact is are what I tried to show that in the Iranian greek they're very nice cognates for anti-muchno was Tor and actually also Balthoslavic has anti-muchno was the Tor becomes in most of the languages kind of a new specialized perfect participle passive participle like we know in latin and we don't have to go over all that but I mean some languages don't behave nicely like Armenian we have relics of the system but the system as such is gone and of course same is true for Albanian and Celtic but this is just to give you an impression that are of course our nicest languages are in Iranian and Greek here but for all the other we have to assume the same systems okay good yeah now let's look at Anatolian first impressionistically uh muchno is not there was is not there Tor is not there and anti is kind of there but it is a verbal adjective exactly like the Tor in the languages okay to to show you this again here so lexical aspect so if we have Quincy to kill Cunand means killed exactly like Potos from Pino if we have a stative Arta stand then we get Arant standing and if we have a non-stative Archi die we get Arkand died okay so it's exactly the way we have exactly like the Tor participles in the in the in the European languages and if you want to look for the gory philological details consult the excellent dissertation of michael frotcher who basically tracked every single anti at the station in he thought okay Laura geistnergen I and she will speak tomorrow we try to reconcile the anti in Anatolian with the anti in the rest of the languages because kind of before we did the people started to think well anti is so different in Anatolian that this is just a thing that looks like the anti of the other languages but it's something completely different but I think it's easier to come up with the way of bringing all of these together and we did that in assuming that basically anti was original denominal theoretical possessive which in in european jargon means adjectival suffix like we actually see so burgh height in in burres or burgh's gothic castle and bergond having height high like in western burasant and burghant or so this was the original function and that we see also in detail so we have nada read and we get nada and having a read really so this is the first step the second is in Anatolian this was reanalyzed as a result in state so we have our denominal here and then they transferred this kind of concept on the verbs and we get kind of what we saw before so we have a result in state interpretation of this anti and this is how we get the verbal adjective in Anatolian so what happened in the post Anatolian in European languages well we also have a reanalyzed analysis as a result in state but this is then further interpreted as a processual so we we saw our denominal here so burgh is anti to burgh's height and this is actually a very nice example because here we get in Vedic jivan we basically get all the steps that we need for our explanation this was originally denominal and meant having life and from having life it got this result in state interpretation being alive and being alive of course is living and with this processual interpretation this one expanded to the other verbs to to non-state different transitives like yant going and then further to transitives and here we go we have baroned kering so this is what we assume now let's look good to kering we find the anti like in prokmanian in the european we find mychno like in prokmanian in european and we find was us like in prokmanian in european and we're not sure about the status of toh stay tuned i've argued against well yeah against one of my own teachers melanie markzahn that all these participles in in to kering and to muchno behave exactly like like anti muchno participles in the prokmanian languages before they were kind of thought to be like ancient nouns of some sort but they're real nice participles and directly correspond to their final verbs so we get brancha brand this of course directly corresponds to baron and ferron kering kering we get cliancha cliant standing to stand and we get yannisha and yand must exist but we just accidentally don't have it going we just have not so much to kering a as to kering b and the difference is like we have 80 percent more to kering b than we have to kering a but yand must have existed then let's look at the muchno guys here so trinkmane trinkmane from trink say for oneself being said premane purmane caring for oneself being carried yannemane yaman because we also have finite passive or medial inflection of the verb we have going and then kat kemane kat kmane being led from the root of the word good and then finally our was and they come in reduplicated and non reduplicated forms so our or so this is the so-called oblique our or or or they all get go back to us with different vowel things happening but believe me they all go back to us and here we have a cursor so and here we have a reduplicated one a kekamu kak mu and of course this is the same root that we have here the gram root to go and and actually this is a directly cognate right kekamu is directly coordinated with jaganvas and beba also here i gave you just the finite forms the only difference is that the reduplication vowel into kering is an all but this is just the copy of the root vowel into the reduplicant which is kind of trivial innovation okay so let's take stock again and now we're talking about our suffixes here in the participial sense and atolian does not have the nt in the participial way does not have mukno and does not have was us but to carrying and basically behaves exactly like the prokmanian european languages so here is the development we start out with the nominal possessive nt in and so we get the verbal adjective and prokmanian european which now includes to kering has the innovation of associating nt with active verbs mukno with middle verbs and was with perfect and here's a slight twist here namely the origin of the perfect participle here i follow also one of my teachers Jeremy Rao who assumed that originally the perfect participle started out as a verbal adjectival used them derived from the perfect or directly from the root so we get basically our perfect and then we get which is this derived used them and we kind of have this mean they're close enough related so chakra is our final perfect and then we get chaga awake as the participle or for a theoretical derivation we have weight and we get way to we dev this is one of our accent upload classes and this is also directly attested so this is the first step to go to the perfect participle the next step is this adjectival used them created a neuter as them abstract so we start here with this you adjective and we just add an s i mean we not the prokman europeans added an s and made this into an abstract and there are there are parallels in the living languages for that like tapu hot and you can make an abstract but directly adding an s and you get tapu in very heat okay and here's the third step and then we are at the perfect participle origin and that is this neuter abstract made internally derived that means by changing the accent upload pattern basically acquiring here an emphykinetic so-called emphykinetic animate as them with this kind of upload behavior was us that we see in the perfect and this emphykinetic derivative from state of being awake was one who is awake or as I translated it woke and widows and one who knows knowing okay and parallel for getting an animate emphykinetic noun from a neuter abstract is for example greek pr which means fat substantive and then we get animate peon fatty as an adjective okay but this means if we believe Jeremy and I do this means that in order for to carrying to have this particular was that is derived from and use them you have to have had the perfect and this means to carrying inherited the perfect and then we can look at to carrying again what is the evidence for having for it having split of second lexical archisms in the world morphology relative simple thematic present like a perfect otherness of the family morphology lack of participle with fixed the thesis bill intense as factual stems lexical archisms have to go because lexical changes are unpredictable and should not be used for subgrouping arguments in the world morphology sorry nominal morphology otherness of the family morphology I showed that to carrying just got normally inherited both the ih2 feminine and the ih2 feminine and we can talk about that but this was not part of of this talk today lack of participle with fixed the thesis bill intense is spectral stems has to go that's what we saw a lack of perfect has to go because we have the perfect participle and the perfect participle says at some point the language at a perfect well it changed the perfect but so did other in European languages Latin made a new patriot category it is composed of perfect and iris and something similar must have happened to carry and we have to figure out exactly how this worked out so we're left with rarity of simple thematic presence and accompanying things like a thematic optative that is interesting to Karen does not have a lot of thematic presence does not have a thematic optative but anyway but we see not so many arguments for to Karen having split off second okay here's just a little preaching because to carry in subgrouping is very often reinforced by arguments that are not from linguistic so artifacts without inscriptions are not linguistic evidence mummies are not linguistic evidence genes are not linguistic evidence and this is just an aside and to kind of kindle your interest the earliest linguistic evidence for to Karen's because near Xinjiang where the texts were found and where they are attested over a period of 600 years between 400 CE and 1000 CE are furnished by long words and this is ongoing work with Bill Baxter and here are just some good long long words but this is basically just to kindle your interest and and stay tuned in this respect okay so to conclude participles with fixed stethesis build intense spectral stems are shared innovation that happened after an atollian split off the to Karen part to Karen branch was part of this major innovation to Karen inherited the classical book money in european perfect to Karen inherited all participles in their classical book money in european value and later of course changing bits and pieces like almost everyone else except our preciously friends greek and indoreanian what's the perspective the perspective is tracing the evolution of individual morphemes and demorphos and tactic features and systems of morphemes and just morphos and tactic features regarding non-trivial innovations hopefully at some point soon reasonably computer aided and this will lead to modifications in the subgrouping and here's Mark Hale again and since any modification in subgrouping changes the value of individual data points for the reconstruction of the proto language we can anticipate many modifications to reconstruction as we finally do the work necessary to confidently establish subgrouping relations and what i presented here today was just a bit of how we have to change individual data points here and here is a good in the european seromon in order to do this the subgrouping the focus of the field i.e. should be on building on an advancing the great achievements of the historical comparative method in the morphophonology and morphos syntax of the european languages instead of shady evidence purely based on lexical items or worse combined with evidence of shady evidence of population genetics and instead of deconstructing the system that are kind of established in favor of of having membranous yector and projecting every t-stem that looks funny in an individual language directly back to the proto language where we then get seven different t-stems instead of one t-stem which i termed i hope to be not to root here and a lot for me a lot for me like infamy um anyway um as to carrying these speakers would say yes park school christian yes so thank you for your attention