Question about Brennos' interview

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

No idea. I claim no expertise in the area. I'm only arguing to improve my own understanding.

Sorry if it came across as confrontational, it wasn't intended as such. The point is that you are right. IF a language (dialect) is from a powerful enough group, then there is an argument for lineal descent - ie it can be shown that certain words, grammars etc. can be shown to have a particular origin. In terms of European languages that was Latin. Even the strong (Imperial) languages that have come since have been, themselves, heavily influenced by Latin as the language of learning (still retaining an elite structure within European societies). It is the experience of Latin (and the following Standard English, German, French, Spanish) that can give the impression that lineal heritage is reasonable, but even that impression is incorrectly based upon the idea that Romance languages degenerated from Classical Latin (and equally, in terms of the argument in English, that dialects are degenerations from some proposed original standard). The vulgar Latins were, essentially, creoles; languages containing Latin terms morphed by the local phonological diaspora and containing local lexical terms.

Language trees, though inadequate in their current form, can be modified to represent a constantly shifting lingual environment where not all the languages are stem from the same root or even stem from a root at all but develop independently. The problem seems to me not to be the abstraction of trees but current designs, especially where all the languages in a group spring from the same ancestor. After enough alteration, though, I suppose the system's not really a family tree anymore.

You've pretty much hit the nail on the head; once you treat languages as they actually behave then the tree model becomes untenable. Here is the quote I was looking for (it is actually by Charles Darwin, but he understood the basis behind the tree model;

"It may be worth while to illustrate this view of classification, by taking the case of languages. If we possessed a perfect pedigree of mankind, a genealogical arrangement of the races of man would afford the best classification of the various languages now spoken throughout the world; and if all extinct languages, and all intermediate and slowly changing dialects, had to be included, such an arrangement would, I think, be the only possible one. Yet it might be that some very ancient language had altered little, and had given rise to few new languages, whilst others (owing to the spreading and subsequent isolation and states of civilisation of the several races, descended from a common race) had altered much, and had given rise to many new languages and dialects. The various degrees of difference in the languages from the same stock, would have to be expressed by groups subordinate to groups; but the proper or even only possible arrangement would still be genealogical; and this would be strictly natural, as it would connect together all languages, extinct and modern, by the closest affinities, and would give the filiation and origin of each tongue."

Origin of Species, Chapter 13 - Mutual Affinities of Organic Beings.

On the subject of ancient languages, I'm curious as to which tongue was used to represent the Sweboz in EBI. And how has new research changed the linguistic picture of the Sweboz and Lugiones in EBII?

I believe that it was based upon proto-Germanic, which is less problemtaic than many other proto languages, simply because it is acknowledged as being much more recent. It still has problems in my opinion, not the least of which is the idea of lineage from a single point; but also (and in order to fit that idea) such concepts as chain shifts (there may be an argument for independent chain shifts within etymologies, but for a whole set of dialects...?)