Re: [tied] Non-lexical language trees

At 9:33:16 on Wednesday, 3 December 2003, Daniel J. Milton
wrote:

> As has been pointed out here, language trees based on
> vocabulary lists, like the Grey-Atkinson one under
> discussion, miss significant relationships like the
> satem-kentum split.

> I presume phonological and morphological phenomena could
> be described as discrete entities amenable to
> corrresponding computation, although it would be a lot
> tougher job than just looking at Swadesh word lists.

Ringe, Warnow, and Taylor use lexical, morphological, and
phonological characters. They list 22 phonological
characters and 15 morphological characters out of a total of
370 characters; the remaining 333 are lexical.

Brian