 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, my 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 Tocherian, which will figure more prominently in a minute. And I'm a Tocheriologist and always strive for making Tocherian great again. So this will, of course, figure here prominently. And maybe not accidentally due to progress in incorporation of general linguistics in our understanding of historical linguistics concerning these advances in the last 50 years. Compared to other traditions and other, well, 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 attested 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, the 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 Nurestani languages and the exact affiliation of subbranches within the Iranian part of the family. And we will hear about Nurestani 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 that. The underdevelopment of subgrouping in Indo-European, I should really be able to pronounce it, is due to several factors. One is a long-term focus on archegisms, 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 in the Iranian. But for example, in my speciality, we have not even really started to systematically reconstruct the morphology of proto-to-carrying. 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 Tukeirin 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 up-loading OA. Lack of perfect, as we see in Indic 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 participle 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 different people call this stage with different names and I will also have one later, so we'll come to it. Yes, in our growing camp over the last 20 years or so that takes Tukarian, 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. Verbal morphology, again, rarity of simple thematic presence, lack of perfect in the nominal morphology, otherness of the feminine morphology and lack of participle with fixed that this is based on tense aspect stems. So basically what these people who proposed the Tukarian split of first think is we have pro-European and Anatolian, whatever you call this, then Tukarian 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 Tukarian has split off. Okay, so what to do? I follow or try to follow Martel 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 proto-European 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 participle system of in the European and how Anatolian and Tukarian fit into this. Participles as we saw already have been in the discussion and Anatolian does not have anything like the other languages and for Tukarian this was also proposed. Then the association of nominal morphemes of participle morphology with the verbal system can be considered I think a 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 termed here uh brookmanian in the European uh brookman uh wrote the great grondries of the in European languages so the system of reconstruction before Anatolian and Tukarian was discovered. My former teacher J. Jasimov 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 Tukarian 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 toe is the verbal adjective. The ont is associated with morphologically active verbs it shows up loud and the morphosyntax is basically the same morphosyntax than the associated verb has. Mykhno is the medio passive participle non-uploading and again morphosyntax associated with the verb and medio passive means that it is associated with with finite verbs that are medio passive 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 toe basically also non-uploading a verbal adjective that kind of has stative semantics. So if you 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, Dharant 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 Muthno and here I just took the medi-passive versions of the cited verbs before so the dana is secretly the the mana but with some sound changes but anyway direct cognate with the dominoes, baramana, direct cognate with Pheronmenos and here these are just blank because they are not attested but Rio has a medi-passive realm and and we saw Rion as the normal active participle and here we see Rionmenos as the middle participle. Then here are wass suffix or perfect participle. Here are just the third singular corresponding perfect forms so Jagara from the root gar, egregora from the verb egero and we get participles. Jagarvas and Greek egregoras okay and which I somehow humoristically translated as woke. Okay and now we turn to the top participles and here 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 Stal, Statos from Isdemi and they're completely nicely cognate, Gata from Garm, Batos from Baino completely cognate. Okay good if we look at the evidence of all the bookmanian-Indian 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 Baltoslavic 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 system okay good yeah now let's look at Anatolian first impressionistically 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 Romanian-European languages okay to show you this again here it's a lexical aspect so if we have Quincy to kill Kunand means killed exactly like Potos from Pino if we have a stative Arta stand then we get Arand standing and if we have a non-stative Aki die we get Arkan died okay so it's exactly the way we have exactly like the Tor participle 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 detail okay Laura Geistenberg and I and she will speak tomorrow we tried 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 I think 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 a 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 burghheit in in burges or burgs gothic castle and bergont having height high like in western burghant and burghant or so this was the original function and that we see also in Hittite 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 resultant 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 resultant 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 resultant state but this is then further interpreted as a processual so we saw our denominals here so burghant high to burghers height and this is actually a very nice example because here we get in Vedic Jivon 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 resultant state interpretation being alive and being alive of course is living and with this processual interpretation this one expanded to the other verbs to non-stative and transitive like yant going and then further to transitive and here we go we have burghant caring so this is what we assume now let's look good to caring we find the anti like in prokmanian in the european we find mykhno like in prokmanian in european and we find was us like in prokmanian in european and we're not sure about the status of tol stay tuned i have argued against well yeah against one of my own teachers Melanie Markzahn that all these participles in in tokaren into mykhno behave exactly like like anti mykhno 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 prancha prant this of course directly corresponds to barant and ferron carry and carry we get kliancha kljant standing to stand and we get jnancha and jant must exist but we just accidentally don't have it going we just have not so much to karen a as to karen b and the the difference is like we have 80 more to karen b than we have to karen a but jant must have existed then let's look at the mykhno guys here so trinkmane trinkmane from trink say for oneself being said premane per man caring for oneself being carried jenemane jeman because we also have finite passive or medial inflection of the verb we have going and then katkemane katkmane being led from the root or the verb good and then finally our was and they come in reduplicated and non-reduplicated forms so our so this is the so-called oblique they all go back to was with different vowel things happening but believe me they all go back to us and here we have a kursal kurso and here we have a reduplicated one kekamu kakmu and of course this is the same root that we have here the gram root to go and and actually this is directly cognate right kekamu is directly cognate with chaganvas and bebaos here i gave you just the finite forms the only difference is that the reduplication vowel into karen 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 etolian does not have the nt in the participial way does not have mukno and does not have was but to karen basically behaves exactly like the brykmanian-indrupian languages so here is the development we started with the denominator possessive nt in etolica the verbal adjective and brykmanian-indrupian which now includes to karen 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 developable adjectival used them derived from the perfect or directly from the root so we get basically or perfect and then we get which is this derived used them and we kind of have this i mean they're close enough related so chakra is our final perfect and then we get 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 next step is this adjectival used them created a neuter as them abstract so we start here with this u adjective and we just add an s i mean we not the problem 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 a translated walk and widows and one who knows okay and parallel for getting an animate emphykinetic now 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 of perfect uh otherness of the family morphology like of participle with fixed the thesis bill intense as factual stems lexical archisms have to go because lexical changes are unpredictable uh 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 like of participle with fixed the thesis bill intense in spectral stems has to go that's what we saw like of perfect has to go because we have the perfect participle and the perfect participle says at some point the language are the perfect well it changed the perfect but so did other in European languages Latin made a new patriot category is composed of perfect and iris and something similar must have happened to carrying 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 thematic optative that is interesting to Karen does not have a lot of thematic presence does not have 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 uh because to carrying 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 furnished by long word and this is ongoing work with Bill Baxter and here are just some good long long word but this is basically just to kindle your interest and and stay tuned in this respect okay so to conclude participles with fixed stethesis building tens of spectral stems are shared innovation that happened after not only split off the to Karen part to Karen branch was part of this major innovation uh to Karen inherited the classical uh book money in european perfect to Karen inherited all participles in their classical book money in european value uh and later of course changing bits and pieces like almost everyone else except our preciously friends Greek and the Iranian uh what's the perspective the perspective is tracing the evolution of individual morphemes and the morphos and tactic features and systems of morphemes and just morphos and tactic features regarding non-trivial innovations uh hopefully at some point soon reasonably computer aided and this will lead to modifications in the subgrouping and here's marquel 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 uh individual data points here uh and here is a good uh in the european uh seromon um in order to do this uh the subgrouping uh the focus of the field i.e. i.e. should be on building uh on and advancing the great achievements of the historical comparative method in the morphophonology and morphosyntax of the european languages instead of shaky evidence purely based on lexical items or worse combined with evidence of shady evidence of population genetics uh and instead of deconstructing the system uh that are kind of established uh in favor of of having memory sector 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 um termed i hope to be not to root here and a lot for me a lot for me like infamy anyway as to carrying these speakers would say yes palsku kryptonian yes so thank you for your attention