2 members found this post helpful.
Funny about making of trees:
-Bernard Sergent (compiling others thoughts relatively recent) thinks archaic "Northwestern Old-Europeish" is not an early indifferenciated IE but rather a kind of "proto-Indo-Iranian"! Curiously he evocates Rhaetian as possibly related to it, but I don't know what kind of Rhaetian he is speaking about here.
-B.S. thinks also that genuine Illyrian did not go far farther north than today Albania, and could be considered as a dialect of a language which gave birth too to Mesapian and Albanian. At a bigger scale it was part of a group of Balkanic languages like Thracian, Dacian an others, rather satemised. The traits shared with Germanic could be linked to the supposed proximity (for a while) of proto-Germanics (already IE-ised) with people close to Illyrians at Lusatian times, if we rely on Henri Hubert, but all this is speculation.
the I-Ian hypothesis for "old west europeish" is interesting; we have one of the Saami Finnic substrata supposed to be an early partly satemised IE language - we have the CWC's who maybe could have spoken this old partly satemized language (look at their distribution in Norway where they seems having been pushed northwards by true Germanics)- we have Germanics which shows more grammatical and lexical ties with Baltic than with Celtic and even with Italic (closer to it than Celtic, in fact) - the supposed Indo-Iranian link could it reflect an old stage of proto-Satem dialects, the IEans of the North? It's discussed in Eurogenes : apparently the ties between Balto-Slavic and I-Ian are ancient and not the result of recent convergences. I personally think that the center of palatalization, motor of satemisation, is in Center and Eastern Europe, not farther North or South, and a continuum existed between Balto-Slavic, Thracian/Dacian & Cy and Indo-Iranian without to speak of lost dialects.
Only bits here. But I think the tree system doesn' exclude partial osmosis between neighbouring languages, and loans. Germanic language has a complicated making: not-IEan + contacts with a rather Satem language before true IEisation from some pan-Italic or Celto-Italic + contacts/ with Baltic and Central Europe (pseudo-"Illyrian"? with some "etruscan-like" tendancies?)
I think today languages forms can mistake us about their ancient proximities; at ancient stages IE dialects were closer one together and could easier exchange with others and modify themselves. There could be some porosity even between our "families".
Grammar and lexicon and phonetic can give us very different feelings about closeness.
&: contrary to what Sile said all the languages in Europe did not undergo a systematic palatalisation for their velars before front vowels.
&: Celtic seems older than Hallstatt and modern Greek is an adopted IE language by non IE folks and some others who were West-Anatolian IE speakers. ATW it underwent serious phonetical modifs.