Quick Diachronics Challenge

A forum for all topics related to constructed languages
shimobaatar
korean
korean
Posts: 7701
Joined: 12 Jul 2013 23:09
Location: PA → IN

Re: Quick Diachronics Challenge

Post by shimobaatar »

In response to sangi39 (1/2):
Spoiler:
sangi39 wrote: 14 Oct 2020 23:38 AB [ˈɣozɛɲ] - [ɳɖɔnˈziməspo] - [tʷaʔˈɣɔɳɖəɻ]  - [beŋˈkuzitɕaɣu]  - [iˈðeʔɣəm]
Word 1 - The stressed vowel and final consonant are correct. 
Word 2 - [-iməspo] is spot-on!
Word 3 - I have [tw-], but otherwise, [tʷa-ɳɖəɻ] is correct. 
Word 4 - The vowels, stress placement, and [k] are all correct. 
Word 5 - [iˈ-e-əm] is correct. 

However, see below for my comments on [z], [ð], and [t͡ɕ]. 
sangi39 wrote: 14 Oct 2020 23:38 There seems to have been some sort of regressive nasalisation, the first step appearing in A (nasalisation of a vowel preceding a nasal consonant), and then a further step in B (nasalisation of any preceding voiced plosives).
[tick] You're partially correct about A. That is to say, what you've theorized about A is correct, but it's not the whole story. 

[cross] However, no such change took place in B.
sangi39 wrote: 14 Oct 2020 23:38 I suspect the [g]~[v] correspondence goes back to an older [ɣ], and I have my suspicions that this might also explain the initial [ b]~[m] correspondence in Word C, but I'm honestly not sure.
[cross] Not quite, although [ɣ] isn't terribly far off. The [g]~[v] correspondence isn't related to the [b]~[m] correspondence, but it is related to the [tʼ]~[p] correspondence. Instead, the [b]~[m] correspondence is related to the [ɖ]~[ɳ] correspondence. 
sangi39 wrote: 14 Oct 2020 23:38 I just realised that I might have reconstructed the wrong eary form for [ð]~[z], which could go back to earlier [ð], giving:

[ˈɣoðɛɲ] - [ɳɖɔnˈðiməspo] - [tʷaʔˈɣɔɳɖəɻ]  - [beŋˈkuðitɕaɣu]  - [iˈðeʔɣəm]
I'm willing to accept [ð] and [t͡ɕ] as essentially correct, although they're not exactly what I originally had in mind before I went back and tried working backwards myself. 
sangi39 wrote: 14 Oct 2020 23:38 Giving what happens later on down the page, I'm not sure [ʔɣ] constitutes a cluster or a single phoneme, and I've mostly just used it as a handwave to explain the alveolar ejective and the velar affricate in A. I'm fairly certain that it is something distinct, though.
If [ʔɣ] were an accurate reconstruction, I would consider it two phonemes. However, it is not. And yes, [tʼ] and [k͡x] in A are unrelated. 

sangi39 wrote: 14 Oct 2020 23:38 CD [ˈħøm]   - [rɨnˈdzimpʰo]  - [toħˈlandzɨ]   - [jemˈpʼyːtsɔ]   - [ɪˈdʒelemɨ]
Word 1 - Very close! One segment is partially off.
Word 2 - Spot-on! This is precisely what I have for one of the acceptable variant reconstructions of this word. 
Word 3 - One consonant is off. 
Word 4 - Very close! As with Word 1, there's one segment that's partially off. 
Word 5 - [-ˈd͡ʒel-] is correct. [-mɨ] is essentially correct as well. 
sangi39 wrote: 14 Oct 2020 23:38 This one seemed a little easier to work through, although I'm a little unsure about the [dz]~[dʒ]~[ʒ] alternations. They feel like they might have a different origin, but ended up merging phonetically in certain environments in C.
[cross] This goes back to multiple phonemes in CD, but no conditioned mergers took place in C. 

sangi39 wrote: 14 Oct 2020 23:38 EF [ˈɣoːŋ]  - [r̩ˈd͡zi:fse]   - [tuˈloːde]    - [ɣepˈkuːtsa]    - [eˈd͡zeːle]
Word 1 - One segment is correct.
Word 2 - I'm counting [-ˈd͡ziːfs-] as correct. [r̩] is close, I guess I'd say.
Word 3 - Two vowels are off in quality, but the rest of the word is correct.
Word 4 - One segment is off. 
Word 5 - All vowels are off in either quality or quantity, but otherwise you're correct. 
sangi39 wrote: 14 Oct 2020 23:38 This is where my thing about [ʔɣ] above starts to fall over. There seems to be some evidence of a cluster somewhere back in time, possibly [ħl], [ħʟ], [ɣl], or something along those lines.
One of those three clusters is correct for CD. 

sangi39 wrote: 14 Oct 2020 23:38 GH [ˈhoːŋ]  - [r̩ˈtsɪsse]     - [sexˈxɔːreŋ]   - [ɪkˈky:ta]      - [jeˈgiːleŋ]
Word 1 - One segment is off.
Word 2 - [-ss-] is correct. [r̩-] is close, I suppose.
Word 3 - One consonant is off, as are all of the vowels.
Word 4 - The consonants that you have, as well as [-a], are correct. 
Word 5 - Two of the consonants are correct, but none of the vowels are.

sangi39 wrote: 14 Oct 2020 23:38 IJ [ˈsuim]  - [ˈrjɛndeso]    - [ˈtolæn]       - [ˈɣemkæta]      - [ˈhilæm]
Word 1 - The consonants are correct.
Word 2 - [ˈr-ɛn-so] is correct. 
Word 3 - One consonant is correct and another is partially correct. The stressed vowel is correct as well. 
Word 4 - Only the two stops are totally correct, but one vowel is only off in terms of length. 
Word 5 - The consonants that you have are correct, as is the stressed vowel.

I'll say you're missing a syllable from three of these words. 
sangi39 wrote: 14 Oct 2020 23:38 So I think this is the first of the eastern branches, given the initial in Word 1. There's a few things that apparently I couldn't quite wrap my head around (some of the initials and the differing vowel qualities), but something's better than nothing.
[cross] Regarding the branching.

sangi39 wrote: 14 Oct 2020 23:38 KL [ˈso:m]  - [r̩ˈɲindɐ]      - [ˈt͡ʃæːrin]    - [ʒeŋˈgiːto]     - [ˈkʰeɪ̯lin]
Word 1 - Everything you have is correct.
Word 2 - [-in-] is correct. [r̩-] is close, I'd say. 
Word 3 - [-æːrin] is essentially correct.
Word 4 - Three of the consonants are correct, and the fourth is very close. One vowel is correct, and another is off in terms of length. 
Word 5 - [-eɪ̯lin] is essentially correct.

You're missing a syllable from three of these words. 
sangi39 wrote: 14 Oct 2020 23:38 This is around about where I started thinking Word 3's initial might not be a matter of co-articulation, or being an affricate, but something like a laminal plosive, which, IIRC, a prone to affrication or frication, which could explain the sporadic nature of the correspondences between branches.
[cross]
sangi39 wrote: 14 Oct 2020 23:38And again there's that [l]~[guttural] correspondence.
[cross] That's not what's going on, at least not here. 

sangi39 wrote: 14 Oct 2020 23:38 MN [ˈzoːʒu] - [ɳæːˈneːzo]    - [ˈtyːɲæːru]    - [ˈʒiːgutʃoː]    - [ˈjeɣeimu]
Word 1 - The nucleus of the stressed syllable is off. 
Word 2 - The consonants and [-o] are correct. [æː] may be close enough, actually.
Word 3 - Only the first and last segments are fully correct. As in Word 2, I may end up accepting [æː] as well. 
Word 4 - The first two consonants and [-u-] are correct. 
Word 5 - [-eɣ-] is off.

You're off in terms of stress placement for three of these words. 
sangi39 wrote: 14 Oct 2020 23:38 I'm not 100% sure what was going through my head at this point [:P]
Haha, that's fair! I know the feeling well. 

sangi39 wrote: 14 Oct 2020 23:38 OP [ˈzʌʒa]  - [ˈjɐːlɯːzo]    - [tuˈwɔje]      - [ʒʌˈguttʃaf]    - [ˈjaːma]
Word 1 - The consonants are correct.
Word 2 - The consonants and two of the vowels are correct. 
Word 3 - Two of the consonants are correct, and the third is partially correct. Two vowels are correct as well.
Word 4 - Three of the consonants are correct, and the fourth is partially correct. Two of the vowels are correct, and the third is off in terms of length.
Word 5 - The consonants are correct. 

The stress placement is off for one word.

sangi39 wrote: 14 Oct 2020 23:38 QR [ˈzɔɪʒ]  - [ɣɛɪˈjeza]     - [taˈxɔɪx]      - [ʒeˈgutta]      - [ɣaˈɣem̥]
Word 1 - This isn't what I had originally, but it's one of the essentially correct alternatives!  
Word 2 - Two of the consonants are correct. The nucleus of the stressed syllable is only slightly off. 
Word 3 - Only [t-ɔɪ̯-] is correct. 
Word 4 - One vowel is off in quality, and one consonant is slightly off as well.
Word 5 - [ɣ-ˈɣe-] is correct.


sangi39 wrote: 14 Oct 2020 23:38 AD [ˈɣozɛN] - [r̩nˈdziməspo]  - [toħˈʟandʒəɻ]  - [ɣemˈkuzitɕaɣ]   - [iˈdʒeʔʟəm]

I'm not sure -[məsp]- is actually original, or if it's something simpler that just became more complex in AD, because I can't really see any counterpart to it in the other branches, and there might be similar issues with -[zi]-
[cross] A-D is not a valid grouping.

Without commenting on the accuracy of [-məsp-] and [-zi-] specifically, I can tell you that a good amount of epenthesis took place in AB. 

sangi39 wrote: 14 Oct 2020 23:38 EH [ˈɣoːŋ]  - [r̩ˈtsi:fse]    - [toxˈʟɔːdeŋ]   - [ɣemˈkuːtsa]     - [jeˈgeːleŋ]

The -[f]- in Word 2 is the only thing I could tie to -[məsp]- in AD, and I'm honestly not sure what's going on there.
[cross] E-H is not a valid grouping.

Again, I can't comment here on the accuracy of [-f-] and [-məsp-] specifically. However, I will point out that [f] is a labiodental fricative, and in [-məsp-], you have two labials and a fricative. 

sangi39 wrote: 14 Oct 2020 23:38 IL [ˈsoːn]  - [riˈndezo]     - [ˈtæːlen]      - [ɣemˈkæto]      - [ˈhe:lem]

Word 2 caused me some problems. I'm assuming IJ is more conservative.
[cross] I-L is not a valid grouping.

Generally speaking, I'd probably describe KL as more conservative than IJ, although I, J, K, and L are all rather innovative. 

sangi39 wrote: 14 Oct 2020 23:38 MR [ˈzɔɪʒ]  - [ɣeˈndezo]     - [tu:ˈxɔɪx]     - [ʒeːˈguttav]    - [jaˈɣem̥]
Word 1 - The consonants are correct.
Word 2 - [-zo] is correct. 
Word 3 - [t-] is the only fully correct segment. One vowel is partially correct.
Word 4 - [ʒ-ˈgu-av] is correct. [eː] is missing a feature, but very close. 
Word 5 - [-ɣe-] is correct.

Generally, it looks like you may have relied too heavily on QR in reconstructing M-R.
sangi39 wrote: 14 Oct 2020 23:38 I'm assuming these three branches constitute some closely related branch (more closely related to each other than to anything else), but I'm not sure if they all split off at once, or if there's some other split within the group, e.g. MN-OP splitting from QR.
[tick] M-R is a valid grouping, as are MN, OP, and QR. 
sangi39 wrote: 14 Oct 2020 23:38 MR [tu:ˈxɔɪx] feels like it could be better reconstructed with some sort of lateral in place of the first [x], but given the lack or similar correspondence in Word 5, I'm note sure.
You're on the right track with a lateral, but not exactly about its placement. Keep thinking about possible similarities to Word 5. 


sangi39 wrote: 14 Oct 2020 23:38 AH [ˈɣozɛŋ] - [r̩nˈtsiməspo]  - [toħˈʟandəɻ]   - [ɣemˈkuzitɕaɣ]   - [jiˈgeħʟəŋ]

As with AD, I'm not sure if -[məsp]- actually goes back this far, and the same for -[zi]-

I'm also really unsure about that final [ɻ] so I'm assuming I've gone wrong somewhere down the line.
[cross] A-H is not a valid grouping.

See my comments above regarding epenthesis in AB. The retroflex rhotic is also a much more recent development. 

sangi39 wrote: 14 Oct 2020 23:38 IR [ˈsozn]  - [reˈndezo]     - [tu:ˈʟeɻ]      - [ɣeːˈguttav]    - [jaˈʟem̥][/code]

Again, very unsure about that [ɻ], I think I've just thrown it there so there's something written down, but I'm fairly certain it's wrong.
[cross] I-R is not a valid grouping. 

See my comments above about [ɻ].


sangi39 wrote: 14 Oct 2020 23:38 AR [ˈʃozen] - [reˈntezo]     - [tuħˈʟendeɻ]   - [ɣemˈkuttaɣ]   - [eˈgeħʟəm]
Word 1 - One correct segment
Word 2 - Three correct segments
Word 3 - Three correct segments
Word 4 - Four correct segments
Word 5 - Three correct segments 
sangi39 wrote: 14 Oct 2020 23:38 I am utterly sure this is wrong. [ˈʃozen] feels like it should be something more akin to [ˈʃoden], and without knowing what's going on with -[məsp]- or -[zi]-, I feel like I'm missing some key part of the puzzle for Word 2 and Word 4.
[ˈʃoden] is no closer than [ˈʃozen]. 

There's nothing I can think of that's common to both Words 2 and 4 that you're missing.




In response to sangi39 (2/2):
Spoiler:
sangi39 wrote: 15 Oct 2020 22:26 AB [ˈɣoðiɲ] - [ɳɖanˈðimpso]  - [tʷaˈGaɳɖəR]  - [beŋˈkuðitɕaɣu]  - [iˈðeGəm]
Word 1 - One segment is off.
Word 2 - [-ɳ-a-ˈðim-pso] is correct.
Word 3 - As I said in my other response, I have [tw-], but otherwise, very close! The only "issues" are your two uncertain phonemes.
Word 4 - [-e-ˈkuðitɕa-u] is correct. 
Word 5 - As with Word 3, the only "problem" is G.
sangi39 wrote: 15 Oct 2020 22:26 [R] and [G] are stand-ins for uncertain phonemes.

I'm fairly certain that [G] is a cluster involving something velar or further back, or possible a consonant with secondary articulation (velarisation, for example).

[R] honestly throws me. It seems to show evidence of nasality, but it isn't retained like word-final nasals out to be in B.
[cross] G is not a cluster, and there's no secondary articulation involved. You're on the right track with "something velar", though.

I'd recommend reconsidering any evidence that you may feel points to R having some element of nasality. 

sangi39 wrote: 15 Oct 2020 22:26 CD [ˈħøːm]  - [renˈdzimpʰo]  - [toħˈɫandze]   - [jɛmˈpʼyːtsɔ]   - [iˈdzeɫeme]
Word 1 - Spot-on!
Word 2 - Very close! One vowel is off.
Word 3 - Close! The final syllable is off, as is one other consonant.
Word 4 - Again, close! One vowel is off in terms of quality, and another is off in terms of length.
Word 5 - One extra syllable. [m] is the only consonant that's entirely correct. One vowel is off in terms of quality.

sangi39 wrote: 15 Oct 2020 22:26 EF [ˈɣoːŋ]  - [r̩ˈdzi:fse]    - [tuˈɫaːde]    - [ɣepˈkuːtsa]    - [eˈdzeːɫe]
Word 1 - The vowel is correct.
Word 2 - One syllable is missing. [-ˈd͡ziːfs-] is correct. [r̩] is close, I'll say.
Word 3 - Very close! One consonant is slightly off, and one vowel is off in terms of quality.
Word 4 - Almost! There's one segment that doesn't need to be there.
Word 5 - Two vowels are off in terms of quality, the other is off in terms of length, and one consonant is slightly off as well.

sangi39 wrote: 15 Oct 2020 22:26 GH [ˈhoːm]  - [r̩ːˈtsɪsse]    - [sexˈxaːren]   - [jɪkˈky:ta]     - [eˈgilem]
Word 1 - Spot-on!
Word 2 - [-ss-] is correct. 
Word 3 - One vowel is off in terms of quality, and another doesn't need to be there.
Word 4 - Close! Two vowels are off in terms of quality.
Word 5 - Two vowels are off in terms of quality, one is also off in terms of length, and the third doesn't need to be there. 

sangi39 wrote: 15 Oct 2020 22:26 IJ [ˈsoim]  - [ˈrɛndiso]     - [ˈtolaɰən]     - [ˈɣemkæta]      - [ˈhilam]
Word 1 - Very, very close! 
Word 2 - [ˈrɛn-so] is correct.
Word 3 - Two of the vowels are correct. [-n] is correct, and another consonant is partially correct.
Word 4 - One vowel is off in terms of quality, one is off in terms of length, and the third is off in terms of both. As for the consonants, only the stops are correct.
Word 5 - Also very close! 

For Words 1 and 5, everything you have is technically correct, but both words are missing a syllable. Try to think about what could theoretically be syllabic.

sangi39 wrote: 15 Oct 2020 22:26 KL [ˈsuem]  - [rˈnindɐ]     - [ˈtawrin]      - [ɟeŋˈgyːto]     - [ˈqʰɪɫin]
Word 1 - The consonants are correct.
Word 2 - One instance of [n] is partially correct, and the other is completely correct. The stressed vowel is also correct.
Word 3 - [t-rin] is correct. 
Word 4 - One consonant is incorrect, and one vowel is off in terms of length.
Word 5 - [-in] is correct. 

At least three of these words are missing a syllable. 

sangi39 wrote: 15 Oct 2020 22:26 MN [ˈzoːʒu] - [ɳaːˈniːdo]    - [ˈtyːɲaːɻu]    - [ˈʒeːgutʃoː]    - [ˈjeɣeimu]
Word 1 - The nucleus of the stressed syllable is off.
Word 2 - The two nasals and the final vowel are correct.
Word 3 - The initial consonant and final syllable are correct. 
Word 4 - [ʒ-gu-] is correct.
Word 5 - [j-eɪ̯mu] is correct.

The placement of stress is off for three of these words. 

sangi39 wrote: 15 Oct 2020 22:26 OP [ˈzoːʒe] - [ˈjaːlɯːzo]    - [tuˈwɔje]      - [ʒeˈguttʃaf]    - [ˈjaːma]
Word 1 - The consonants are correct.
Word 2 - One vowel is off in terms of quality.
Word 3 - The stressed vowel is off. [w] is partially off.
Word 4 - The pretonic vowel is off. The geminate is slightly off. 
Word 5 - The consonants are correct. 

The placement of stress is off for one of these words. 

sangi39 wrote: 15 Oct 2020 22:26 QR [ˈzɔɪʒ]  - [ɣɛɪˈjeɪza]    - [taˈxɔɪx]      - [ʒeˈgutta]      - [ɣaˈɣemx]
Word 1 - This is one of the alternative reconstructions that I'll accept!
Word 2 - [-ˈjeɪ̯z-] is correct.
Word 3 - [t-ɔɪ̯-] is correct.
Word 4 - One vowel is off in terms of quality. The geminate is slightly off.
Word 5 - [ɣ-ˈɣe-m] is correct. 


sangi39 wrote: 15 Oct 2020 22:26 AD [ˈɣoðim] - [reˈndimpso]   - [toħˈɫandeR]  - [ɣemˈkuditsaɣu] - [iˈɟe(ħ)ɫəm]
[cross] A-D is not a valid grouping. 

sangi39 wrote: 15 Oct 2020 22:26 EH [ˈɣoːm]  - [r̩nˈtsi:pse]   - [toxˈɫaːdeŋ]  - [ɣemˈkuːtsa]    - [eˈgeːɫem]
                              ~[toxˈɫaːreŋ]
[cross] E-H is not a valid grouping. 

sangi39 wrote: 15 Oct 2020 22:26 IL [ˈsoem]  - [reˈndezo]     - [ˈtoɫaren]     - [ɣemˈgæto]      - [ˈɢɪ:ɫem]
[cross] I-L is not a valid grouping. 

sangi39 wrote: 15 Oct 2020 22:26 OR [ˈzɔɪʒe] - [ɣeːˈliːzo]    - [toˈɫɔjex]     - [ʒeːˈguttav]    - [jaˈɣemx]
[cross] O-R is not a valid grouping. 

sangi39 wrote: 15 Oct 2020 22:26 MR [ˈzoːʒe] - [ʀeːˈniːzo]    - [ˈtoːɫaːrex]   - [ˈʒeːguttav]    - [ˈjeɣeimx]
Word 1 - The consonants are correct. The stressed vowel is missing something.
Word 2 - The final syllable is correct. The stressed vowel is missing something.
Word 3 - Three of the consonants are correct. There's something missing from one of the vowels.
Word 4 - The consonants are correct, except for the geminate. The first vowel is missing something, but the other two are correct.
Word 5 - [-ɣe-m-] is correct. 

The stress placement is off for three of these words. 
sangi39 wrote: 15 Oct 2020 22:26 MN [ˈzoːʒu] - [ɳaːˈniːdo]    - [ˈtyːɲaːɻu]    - [ˈʒeːgutʃoː]    - [ˈjeɣeimu]
OR [ˈzɔɪʒe] - [ɣeːˈliːzo]    - [toˈɫɔjex]     - [ʒeːˈguttav]    - [jaˈɣemx]
MR [ˈzoːʒe] - [ʀeːˈniːzo]    - [ˈtoːɫaːrex]   - [ˈʒeːguttav]    - [ˈjeɣeimx]
Note that, while M-R and MN are valid groupings, O-R is not. 


sangi39 wrote: 15 Oct 2020 22:26 AH [ˈɣoðɛm] - [reˈntsimpso]  - [toħˈʟandəɻ]   - [ɣemˈkutitsaɣu] - [eˈgeħʟəm]
[cross] A-H is not a valid grouping. 

sangi39 wrote: 15 Oct 2020 22:26 IR [ˈzozen] - [reˈndiːzo]    - [ˈtoɫaːren]    - [ɣeːˈguttav]    - [jeˈɢɪ:ɫem̥]
[cross] I-R is not a valid grouping. 


sangi39 wrote: 15 Oct 2020 22:26 AR [ˈʒoden] - [reˈntimpso]   - [toħˈlanden]   - [ɣemˈkutitaɣu]  - [eˈgeħlem̥]
Word 1 - One correct segment 
Word 2 - Six correct segments 
Word 3 - Four correct segments 
Word 4 - Six correct segments 
Word 5 - Three correct segments
shimobaatar
korean
korean
Posts: 7701
Joined: 12 Jul 2013 23:09
Location: PA → IN

Re: Quick Diachronics Challenge

Post by shimobaatar »

In response to Ratsawn:
Spoiler:
Ratsawn wrote: 15 Oct 2020 07:09 So, after Shimobaatar's comments, my new proposed groupings are:
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R
AB CD EF GH IJ KL MN OP QR
ABCDEF GHIJKL MNOPQR
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQR
[tick]

Ratsawn wrote: 15 Oct 2020 07:09 Proto-AB
1: *ˈgwoðen
2: *ɳɳãˈðiməspo
3: *ptaˈk͡xãɳɳəɻ
4: *mempˈkuðit͡sagwu
5: *iˈðek͡xəm
Word 1 - Two segments are correct, and a third is probably close enough. There's one segment that doesn't need to be there, however.
Word 2 - Six correct segments. As in Word 1, there's another that's probably close enough, and two more are partially correct. However, you're missing a segment.
Word 3 - Five correct segments and two partially correct segments. 
Word 4 - Nine correct segments. Two other segments are probably close enough, as in Words 1 and 2. Additionally, there are two extra segments that don't need to be there. 
Word 5 - Four correct segments. As in Words 1, 2, and 4, another segment is probably close enough.

Ratsawn wrote: 15 Oct 2020 07:09 Proto-CD
1: *ˈħyə̯m
2: *ɹɨnˈd͡zimpʰo
3: *taħˈland͡zɨ
4: *ʔemˈp’əʏ̯t͡so
5: *ʔɪd͡ʒe[l, ɫ]mɨ
Word 1 - The nucleus of the syllable is off.
Word 2 - One consonant is off, but very close. 
Word 3 - Two segments are off. 
Word 4 - Two of the vowels are off. 
Word 5 - One vowel is off. Also, it doesn't look like stress has been indicated. 

Ratsawn wrote: 15 Oct 2020 07:09 Proto-EF
1: *ˈʔun
2: *ɹaˈd͡zifse
3: *tulaːde
4: *ʔepˈkuːt͡sa
5: *ʔed͡ze[ɫ, l]e
Word 1 - The nucleus of the syllable is off. 
Word 2 - At least one missing segment. One vowel is off in terms of length, another is off in terms of quality. 
Word 3 - All correct except for the final vowel and the lack of stress. 
Word 4 - Spot-on!
Word 5 - Two vowels are off in terms of quality. 

Ratsawn wrote: 15 Oct 2020 07:09Proto-ABCDEF
1: *ˈqwoðen
2: *ɹanˈdinspo
3: *ptakˈlandəɻ
4: *ʔempˈkuːðit͡sagwu
5: *ʔɪˈdeklem
Word 1 - One correct segment. One extra syllable.
Word 2 - The vowels that you have are correct, but one's missing. Two consonants are slightly off, and two more are not in the correct order. 
Word 3 - Five correct segments. 
Word 4 - Two extra syllables. The number of correct segments is actually a bit hard to count because of that. 
Word 5 - Two unnecessary/extra segments. One vowel is correct. Two consonants are at least partially correct. 


Ratsawn wrote: 15 Oct 2020 07:09 Proto-GH
1: *ˈhun
2: *retˈt͡sisse
3: *sexˈxɔːren
4: *jɪkˈkyːtɐ
5: *jeˈgeːlen
Word 1 - One correct segment. 
Word 2 - Of the vowels, only the stressed one is correct. One consonant is off in terms of voicing.
Word 3 - Two vowels are off in quality, and the third doesn't need to be there. The consonants are all spot-on, however.
Word 4 - The vowels are all off in quality, but the consonants are spot-on.
Word 5 - The stressed vowel is correct, another vowel is off in quality, and the third doesn't need to be there. Two consonants are correct, one is unnecessary, and the fourth is off.

Ratsawn wrote: 15 Oct 2020 07:09 Proto-IJ
1: *ˈsum
2: *ˈrjɛnd͡zĩso
3: *ˈtoʎən
4: *ˈŋɪŋkpeta
5: *ˈŋilam
Word 1 - The consonants are correct. 
Word 2 - One consonant is close but incorrect, and one vowel is off in terms of length. Another consonant doesn't need to be there, but otherwise, all correct.
Word 3 - The stressed vowel and final consonant are correct. 
Word 4 - Two vowels are off in terms of length, and the third is off in terms of quality. One consonant doesn't need to be there, one is off, but the remaining three are correct.
Word 5 - The stressed vowel and final syllable are correct.
 
Three of these words are missing a syllable. 

Ratsawn wrote: 15 Oct 2020 07:09 Proto-KL
1: *ˈsunvɛ
2: *rəˈnind͡zɐ
3: *ˈtʊʃin
4: *deŋˈgœʏ̯tɐ
5: *ˈkʰɪlin
Word 1 - [s-] is correct. 
Word 2 - One consonant is partially correct, and the rest are entirely correct. The stressed vowel is correct as well. 
Word 3 - The initial and final consonants are correct. The remaining consonant is partially correct. [-i-] is correct as well. 
Word 4 - One vowel is correct. One consonant is incorrect. 
Word 5 - [-lin] is correct. 

Two words are missing a syllable, and the placement of stress is off for one. 

Ratsawn wrote: 15 Oct 2020 07:09 Proto-GHIJKL
1: *ˈsunv
2: *renˈt͡sinso
3: *ʔɪŋˈkpyːtɐ
4: *jeˈgɪlen
5: *ˈtorjen
Word 1 - [s-] is correct. 
Word 2 - One vowel and one consonant are incorrect.
Word 3 - Three correct segments. 
Word 4 - One unnecessary segment. Three correct segments.
Word 5 - Two correct segments, but the structure of the word overall is correct.

Two words are missing a syllable, and for one, the placement of stress is off. 

It looks like you may have accidentally listed Words 3, 4, and 5 as Words 5, 3, and 4. My comments on Word 3 are therefore in response to *ˈtorjen, not *ʔɪŋˈkpyːtɐ.  


Ratsawn wrote: 15 Oct 2020 07:09 Proto-MN
1: *ˈzuːʒo
2: *naːˈneːzo
3: *tyːˈnaːʒo
4: *ʒjaˈguʃʃaʊ̯
5: *jeˈʒʒeːmʲo
Word 1 - The consonants are correct.
Word 2 - Two consonants are correct, as is the final vowel. 
Word 3 - [t-] is correct.
Word 4 - The nuclei of two syllables are correct. Two consonants are correct, and a third is slightly off.
Word 5 - The initial consonant is correct and one vowel is fairly close. 

Ratsawn wrote: 15 Oct 2020 07:09 Proto-OP
1: *ˈzaːʒa
2: *jaːˈlɯːzo
3: *tuˈbbaːje
4: *ʒaːˈgutt͡ʃaf
5: *ˈjeːme
Word 1 - The consonants are correct.
Word 2 - The quality of the first vowel is off, but otherwise everything is correct.
Word 3 - One of the vowels is off in terms of quality. The geminate is off as well.
Word 4 - One vowel is off in quality, one consonant is off in terms of voicing, but the rest is correct.
Word 5 - The consonants are correct, and one vowel is partially correct.

Ratsawn wrote: 15 Oct 2020 07:09 Proto-QR
1: *ˈzɔɪ̯ʒ
2: *ɣɔˈjeza
3: *taxˈxɔɪ̯x
4: *ʒɛˈgʏtta
5: *gaˈɣeːmx
Word 1 - While not what I originally had in mind, this is one of the alternative reconstructions I'm counting as correct!
Word 2 - Two of the consonants are correct. One vowel is correct, one is off in terms of length, and the third is off in terms of quality.
Word 3 - One consonant is correct and another is off in terms of voicing.
Word 4 - One vowel is off in terms of quality and one consonant is off in terms of voicing. The rest of the word is correct.
Word 5 - Two consonants are correct. One vowel is off in terms of length. 

Ratsawn wrote: 15 Oct 2020 07:09 Proto-MNOPQR
1: *ˈzɔɪ̯ʒo
2: *ŋaːˈleːzo
3: *tuˈgwaʒa
4: *ŋeʒˈʒeːme
5: *ʒɛˈguttaʊ̯
Word 1 - The consonants are correct.
Word 2 - The final syllable is correct. One other vowel is missing a feature. 
Word 3 - [tu-] is correct. One other vowel is missing two features.
Word 4 - Four segments are correct. 
Word 5 - [-m-] is correct. One vowel is off in terms of length. 

It looks like you may have reversed Words 4 and 5. My comments on Word 4 will be referencing *ʒɛˈguttaʊ̯ and my comments on Word 5 will be referencing *ŋeʒˈʒeːme.


Ratsawn wrote: 15 Oct 2020 07:09 Proto-World
1: *ˈqwoson
2: *ranˈdenspo
3: *ptaŋˈklentaɻ
4: *ʔempˈkeðit͡sagwu
5: *jeˈtoktem
Word 1 - Two correct segments
Word 2 - Six correct segments
Word 3 - Three correct segments
Word 4 - Five correct segments
Word 5 - One correct segment 
Ratsawn wrote: 15 Oct 2020 07:09 Alright so most of these are complete trash, but the lowest level of groupings (AB, CD, etc.) are the ones I'm most confident on. To lighten your load, Shimobaatar, for this round I'm most interested in grouping help and sound correspondences where it is not clear which segments correspond to which. I apologize for the guesswork, I'm not usually this inaccurate, but then again I'm not usually submitting my guesses to be judged.
I don't mind being given a "heavier load", so to speak. Hopefully I've addressed your primary concerns for now, but of course, always feel free to ask more questions.
Ratsawn
rupestrian
rupestrian
Posts: 13
Joined: 31 Aug 2020 23:17

Re: Quick Diachronics Challenge

Post by Ratsawn »

Alright, here is a much more well-studied response for the second roundː
Spoiler:

A: [ˈgoðɛ̃ː] - [əːɖɔ̃ːˈðĩə̯̃spo] - [tʼaˈk͡xɔ̃ːɖəː] - [bɛ̃ˈkʼuðiθagu] - [iˈðek͡xə̃ː]
B: [ˈvoziɲ] - [ɳɳaˈziməff] - [paˈɣaɳɳəɻ] - [mexˈxuzit͡ɕav] - [ˈzeɣəm]
AB: [ˈʁoðiɲ] - [əᶯɖaˈðiməspo] - [twaˈgaɳɖəɻ] - [meˈkuðit͡ɕaʁu] - [iˈðekʰəm]

The two things that baffle me here are the g - v and k͡x - ɣ correspondences.

For the former, AB’s closest relatives, CD and EF, would suggest some consonant far back in POA. Because of the reflexes in A and B, I’ve elected to choose ʁ, but I’m not certain of that.

For the latter, it looks like a k would be appropriate, but we already have k becoming k’ and x in the daughters, so rather than extrapolate some condition, I’ve chosen kʰ. I also briefly considered g, but the affricate suggested aspiration as a cause, and B could easily have removed the aspiration before the voicing and frication stages.

C: [ˈħem] - [rɨnˈd͡zimpʰo] - [toħˈland͡ʒɨ] - [jemˈpʼiːt͡sɔ] - [ˈd͡ʒlemɨ]
D: [ˈħyə̯m] - [ɹn̩ˈd͡zɪɱfa] - [taħˈɫand͡z] - [ʔɛmˈpəʏ̯so] - [ʔɪˈzɛɫm]
CDː [ˈħøːm] - [rɨnˈd͡zimpʰo] - [toħˈɫand͡zɨ] - [ʔemˈp’yːt͡sɔ] - [ʔiˈd͡ʒelmɨ]

Word 3 seemed complex. Your comment about 2 segments being off didn’t leave a lot of room within the daughters for changes. Obviously the t, ħ, a, and n were no change from CD. Vowel loss made the most sense for the final vowel, and you didn’t say there were too many segments, so I kept that the same, and the d͡ʒ - d͡z correspondence lent itself to palatalization and matched up with other related languages. I’ve here decided to choose the other reflex that I didn’t choose last time for o - a and l - ɫ.

E: [ˈʔun] - [ɹaˈzaɪ̯fs] - [tʊˈɫað] - [ʔɛfˈkaʊ̯sa] - [ˈzɛɫ]
F: [ˈwoŋ] - [jerˈd͡ziffe] - [tuˈloːde] - [jeˈk͡puːt͡sa] - [jeˈd͡zeːle]
EFː [ˈʔoːn] - [eraˈd͡ziːfsə] - [tuˈlaːdə] - [ʔepˈkuːt͡sa] - [ʔiˈd͡zelə]

The only thing I’m really unsure about is the final vowel in 2, 3, and 5. It looks like it should be e, but you’ve identified it as wrong. Based on immediate cognates having central vowels in many cases, I’m trying ə and assuming it moved to e in F.

AB: [ˈʁoðiɲ] - [əᶯɖaˈðiməspo] - [twaˈgaɳɖəɻ] - [meˈkuðit͡ɕaʁu] - [iˈðekʰəm]
CDː [ˈħøːm] - [rɨnˈd͡zimpʰo] - [toħˈɫand͡zɨ] - [ʔemˈp’yːt͡sɔ] - [ʔiˈd͡ʒelmɨ]
EFː [ˈʔoːn] - [eraˈd͡ziːfsə] - [tuˈlaːdə] - [ʔepˈkuːt͡sa] - [ʔiˈd͡zelə]
ABCDEFː [ˈħoːn] - [ranˈd͡zinəpso] - [tuˈɫandəɻ] - [ʔempˈkuːt͡sa] - [iˈdeɫəm]

As for word 1, I’m not sure about the initial, but I am fairly certain it is an obstruent that is uvular or further back. My choice here is fairly arbitrary, I expect to keep guessing until I pick the right one.

Word 3 and 4 are essentially educated guesswork, so comments on those will be appreciated.

In word 5, I believe the two unnecessary segments were the initial glottal stop (which must have been a feature added to vowel initial words in CD and EF) and the k. I think I can explain the velar reflex in AB as a dark ɫ, making that the slight change I needed. As for the off vowels and the fully correct consonant, I hope this is correct.

G: [ˈhuːŋ] - [retˈt͡sisse] - [sexˈxɔːreŋ] - [jekˈkyːtɔ] - [jeˈgiːleŋ]
H: [ˈhom] - [r̩ˈd͡zɪs] - [ˈsxarn] - [ɪˈcuːðɐ] - [ˈʝeʊ̯m]
GHː [ˈhoːm] - [rədˈd͡zissə] - [səxˈxaːrn] - [jekˈkuːta] - [ˈgeːləm]

I’m assuming that many of the incorrect vowels should be schwa, with the e reflex being an areal effect shared between F and G.

In word 5, your comments indicate that je- should be removed, but I can’t figure out why it appeared in G then. Insight would be appreciated.

I: [ˈsum] - [ˈrɛnʒes] - [ˈsoʎən] - [ˈwɪŋketæ] - [ˈsiʎəm]
J: [ˈsõɪ̯̃] - [ˈrjɛ̃dĩzo] - [ˈtolɔ̃ɐ̯̃] - [ˈŋõʊ̯̃pæda] - [ˈŋiə̯ɮã]
IJː [ˈsom] - [ˈrɛndĩːso] - [ˈt͡solən] - [ˈwiŋkeːtaː] - [ˈhilam]

You said that three words are missing a syllable, and I know that those words are 2, 3, and 4, but the reflexes in the daughter langs are so divergent that I don’t know where to start, so I’m ignoring that for this round. Assistance/hints would be appreciated.

K: [ˈsũvɛ] - [rɐ̃ˈnĩdɐ] - [tʊˈʃẽɪ̯̃] - [dɛ̃ˈŋœʏ̯dɐ] - [ħɪˈʕĩː]
L: [ˈsoʊ̯n] - [r̩ˈɲinz] - [ˈt͡ʃæːrin] - [ʒeŋˈgiːto] - [ˈkʰeɪ̯lin]
KL: [ˈsoːme] - [reˈnindo] - [tuʃˈʃæːrin] - [ʒeŋˈgyːto] - [ˈχeɪ̯lin]

The vowels in word 2 elude me. I’m going to say for now that the mid vowels of KL collapsed to ɐ, at least when unstressed. I’m thinking that the emergence of ɛ in word 1 must’ve happened later.

The initial in word 5 seems to be some kind of unvoiced back fricative, though I can’t say I’ve ever heard of a fricative becoming an aspirated stop, so I’m not sure.

Once again, the syllabification issue is not showing up to me (I attempted on word 3), any comments would be appreciated.

GHː [ˈhoːm] - [rədˈd͡zissə] - [səxˈxaːrn] - [jekˈkuːta] - [ˈgeːləm]
IJː [ˈsom] - [ˈrɛndĩːso] - [ˈt͡solən] - [ˈwiŋkeːtaː] - [ˈhilam]
KL: [ˈsoːme] - [reˈnindo] - [tuʃˈʃæːrin] - [ʒeŋˈgyːto] - [ˈχeɪ̯lin]
GHIJKLː [ˈsoːm] - [rɛnˈdinso] - [t͡soʃˈʃaːren] - [ʒeŋˈkuːta] - [jeˈgeːlem]

I hope I’ve interpreted the one incorrect vowel and consonant in word 2 correctly.

M: [ˈzwaʒu] - [ɳɛˈnaɪ̯ʒo] - [twiˈɲɛɻu] - [ʒjaˈguʃaʊ̯] - [jiˈwemʲu]
N: [ˈzuːʒo] - [ˈnaːneːzo] - [ˈtyːnaːʒo] - [ˈʒiːguʒʒoː] - [ˈjeʒʒeːmo]
MNː [ˈzoːʒu] - [ɳæːˈnaɪ̯zo] - [twiˈɳæːɻu] - [ʒeːˈguʒʒaʊ̯] - [jiwˈweɪ̯mu]

The medial consonant(s) in word 5 is tough. I am thinking that maybe a w fortified and then palatalized in N, and that the original geminate was simply lost in M.

O: [ˈzʌːʒe] - [ˈd͡ʒʌːlɯːzo] - [ˈtubbʌːje] - [ˈʒʌːgudd͡ʒaf] - [ˈd͡ʒoːme]
P: [ˈzaʒa] - [jɛˈlɯzo] - [tuˈwɔje] - [ʒaˈgut͡ʃa] - [ˈjeːma]
OPː [ˈzʌːʒə] - [jʌːˈlɯːzo] - [tuwˈwʌːje] - [ʒʌːˈgudd͡ʒaf] - [ˈjeumə]

As for the vowels with the reflex ʌː in O, I think that that vowel may have split into separate reflexes in P from one original phoneme.

Q: [ˈrɔɪ̯z] - [ɦɔˈjeɪ̯ra] - [taxˈxɔɐ̯] - [zɛˈgʏtta] - [gaˈɣeɐ̯m]
R: [ˈzwɛʃ] - [ɣəjˈjez] - [ˈtxwɛx] - [ʒəˈguddə] - [ˈɣɣem̥x]
QRː [ˈzɔɪ̯ʒ] - [ʁɔːˈjeɪ̯za] - [təʍˈʍɔɪ̯ɣ] - [ʒɛˈgudda] - [ɣəˈɣeːmə]

The geminate in word 3 doesn’t make sense to me. In both daughters, it is realized by an x, but you said that it is wrong. I’m just gonna guess then.

In word 5, I was thinking that maybe a final vowel devoiced and fortified to a consonant, but this may be a reach.

MNː [ˈzoːʒu] - [ɳæːˈnaɪ̯zo] - [twiˈɳæːɻu] - [ʒeːˈguʒʒaʊ̯] - [jiwˈweɪ̯mu]
OPː [ˈzʌːʒə] - [jʌːˈlɯːzo] - [tuwˈwʌːje] - [ʒʌːˈgudd͡ʒaf] - [ˈjeumə]
QRː [ˈzɔɪ̯ʒ] - [ʁɔːˈjeɪ̯za] - [təʍˈʍɔɪ̯ɣ] - [ʒɛˈgudda] - [ɣəˈɣeːmə]
MNOPQRː [ˈzɔːʒu] - [ɦɔːˈneɪ̯zo] - [tuˈŋaːjə] - [ʒeːˈguddav] - [jəɣˈɣemə]

The initial in word 2 seems to be a back consonant from its reflexes in QR. I could see it approximating and nasalizing in the other branches due to rhinoglottophilia, but it still seems shaky with the value I’ve given it.

In word 3, you said a vowel is missing two features. The only things that I would consider a feature are length and diphthongisation. Would you mind defining a vowel feature so I can better interpret your comments, because it doesn’t seem likely to be a long diphthong.

ABCDEFː [ˈħoːn] - [ranˈd͡zinəpso] - [tuˈɫandəɻ] - [ʔempˈkuːt͡sa] - [iˈdeɫəm]
GHIJKLː [ˈsoːm] - [rɛnˈdinso] - [t͡soʃˈʃaːren] - [ʒeŋˈkuːta] - [jeˈgeːlem]
MNOPQRː [ˈzɔːʒu] - [ɦɔːˈneɪ̯zo] - [tuˈŋaːjə] - [ʒeːˈguddav] - [jəɣˈɣemə]
A-Rː [ˈsoʒom] - [ranˈdempso] - [tonˈlantaɻ] - [ʒemˈkuddav] - [jəˈgelem]

The structure of word three is still unclear. It seems like it should be CVNGVNCVɻ, where G is an approximate. Though, the presence of the first nasal seems contested, and the approximate could have come from a fricative, explaining the reflex in GHIJKL. I’m not sure yet.

The nasal in word 3 appears to be present, but its POA may not match the following consonant. If it is labial, that would explain the appearance of p in ABCDEF to bridge the gap between m and k.
ɶʙ ɞʛ
sinic
sinic
Posts: 287
Joined: 02 Aug 2019 18:47

Re: Quick Diachronics Challenge

Post by ɶʙ ɞʛ »

A [ˈgoðɛ̃ː] - [əːɖɔ̃ːˈðĩə̯̃spo] - [tʼaˈk͡xɔ̃ːɖəː] - [bɛ̃ˈkʼuðiθagu] - [iˈðek͡xə̃ː]

B [ˈvoziɲ] - [ɳɳaˈziməff] - [paˈɣaɳɳəɻ] - [mexˈxuzit͡ɕav] - [ˈzeɣəm]

AB [ɣod͡zin] – [ɳɖand͡ziməspo] – [twakaɳɖəɻ] – [mbek:ud͡zit͡saɣu] – [id͡zekəm]

C [ˈħem] - [rɨnˈd͡zimpʰo] - [toħˈland͡ʒɨ] - [jemˈpʼiːt͡sɔ] - [ˈd͡ʒlemɨ]

D [ˈħyə̯m] - [ɹn̩ˈd͡zɪɱfa] - [taħˈɫand͡z] - [ʔɛmˈpəʏ̯so] - [ʔɪˈzɛɫm]

CD [ħø:m] – [rɨndimpʰɒ] – [tɒħlandi] – [emp’y:tɒu] – [idelmɨ]

*CD /l/ seems to correspond to AB /x/ - maybe an initial cluster /ɣl/ in Proto-AF?
*Similarly, AB /g/, CD /ħ/, EF /h/ coming from initial /ɣ/

E [ˈʔun] - [ɹaˈzaɪ̯fs] - [tʊˈɫað] - [ʔɛfˈkaʊ̯sa] - [ˈzɛɫ]

F [ˈwoŋ] - [jerˈd͡ziffe] - [tuˈloːde] - [jeˈk͡puːt͡sa] - [jeˈd͡zeːle]

EF [ho:n] – [ered͡zi:fs] – [tula:de] – [hepku:t͡sa] – [ʔed͡ze:le]

Proto-AF: [ɣod͡zim] – [erand͡zimspo] – [toɣlandir] – [empku:d͡zit͡saɣu] – [id͡zeɣlem]

G [ˈhuːŋ] - [retˈt͡sisse] - [sexˈxɔːreŋ] - [jekˈkyːtɔ] - [jeˈgiːleŋ]

H [ˈhom] - [r̩ˈd͡zɪs] - [ˈsxarn] - [ɪˈcuːðɐ] - [ˈʝeʊ̯m]

GH [ho:m] – [ret͡s:is:e] – [sex:a:ren] – [hek:u:ta] – [egi:lem]

I [ˈsum] - [ˈrɛnʒes] - [ˈsoʎən] - [ˈwɪŋketæ] - [ˈsiʎəm]

J [ˈsõɪ̯̃] - [ˈrjɛ̃dĩzo] - [ˈtolɔ̃ɐ̯̃] - [ˈŋõʊ̯̃pæda] - [ˈŋiə̯ɮã]

IJ [som] – [rendems] – [tol:on] – [hwemketa] – [hil:am]

K [ˈsũvɛ] - [rɐ̃ˈnĩdɐ] - [tʊˈʃẽɪ̯̃] - [dɛ̃ˈŋœʏ̯dɐ] - [ħɪˈʕĩː]

L [ˈsoʊ̯n] - [r̩ˈɲinz] - [ˈt͡ʃæːrin] - [ʒeŋˈgiːto] - [ˈkʰeɪ̯lin]

KL [sume] – [ranind͡za] – [tuʃa:rin] – [d͡zeŋgoito] – [xeilin]

Proto-GL [sume] – [randimsa] – [t͡soɣlorin] – [swemkoita] - [keɣilem]
* k > x > h word initially to IJ
*x > ħ in K

M [ˈzwaʒu] - [ɳɛˈnaɪ̯ʒo] - [twiˈɲɛɻu] - [ʒjaˈguʃaʊ̯] - [jiˈwemʲu]

N [ˈzuːʒo] - [ˈnaːneːzo] - [ˈtyːnaːʒo] - [ˈʒiːguʒʒoː] - [ˈjeʒʒeːmo]

MN [zo:ʒo] – [ɳanaizo] – [tu:ɲaɻo] – [ʒe:guʒʒau] – [jeʒwe:mo]

O [ˈzʌːʒe] - [ˈd͡ʒʌːlɯːzo] - [ˈtubbʌːje] - [ˈʒʌːgudd͡ʒaf] - [ˈd͡ʒoːme]

P [ˈzaʒa] - [jɛˈlɯzo] - [tuˈwɔje] - [ʒaˈgut͡ʃa] - [ˈjeːma]

OP [zaʒe] – [jalɯzo] – [tuvaje] – [ʒagudd͡ʒaf] – [jeume]
*a: > /ʌ:/ in O
*final e > a except after /j/ in P

Q [ˈrɔɪ̯z] - [ɦɔˈjeɪ̯ra] - [taxˈxɔɐ̯] - [zɛˈgʏtta] - [gaˈɣeɐ̯m]

R [ˈzwɛʃ] - [ɣəjˈjez] - [ˈtxwɛx] - [ʒəˈguddə] - [ˈɣɣem̥x]

QR – [zwɛjs] – [ɣɔj:ezə] – [taxwɛx] – [ʒeguttə] – [gəɣexm]

Proto-MR [zoiso] – [rnanlaizo] – [toɣnoje] – [ʒeguttjau] – [gajexm]


Proto-AF: [ɣod͡zim] – [erand͡zimspo] – [toɣlandir] – [empku:d͡zit͡saɣu] – [id͡zeɣlem]
z > d͡z, but *g palatalizes to d͡z; *au develops epenthetic *ɣ, initial *s deleted, *we > *e
Proto-GL [sume] – [randimsa] – [t͡soɣlorin] – [swemkoita] - [keɣilem]
*z deleted intervocalically and in coda, but *nz > *nd, and *nd > *r. Devoicing of initial voiced stops, voiceless stops become aspirated and then affricated
Proto-MR [zoiso] – [rnanlaizo] – [toɣnoje] – [ʒeguttjau] – [gajexm]
lan > lã > na, z > ð > l adjacent to nasals
Proto-AR: [sɣuzme] – [rnanzimso] - [toɣlandir] – [swemkuzitau] – [geɣlem̥]
shimobaatar
korean
korean
Posts: 7701
Joined: 12 Jul 2013 23:09
Location: PA → IN

Re: Quick Diachronics Challenge

Post by shimobaatar »

Just an update: I have received and prepared my responses to Ratsawn and ɶʙ ɞʛ's second guesses, but as before, I'm not going to post them yet in case sangi39 is planning to submit a second attempt, or in case anyone else wants to jump in.
User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 2718
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 01:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

Re: Quick Diachronics Challenge

Post by sangi39 »

shimobaatar wrote: 25 Oct 2020 00:19 Just an update: I have received and prepared my responses to Ratsawn and ɶʙ ɞʛ's second guesses, but as before, I'm not going to post them yet in case sangi39 is planning to submit a second attempt, or in case anyone else wants to jump in.
I am [:)] Just need a few days, I think. Trying not to rush it, but understand that I can't be too slow either, for the sake of other people wanting to take part [:)]
You can tell the same lie a thousand times,
But it never gets any more true,
So close your eyes once more and once more believe
That they all still believe in you.
Just one time.
shimobaatar
korean
korean
Posts: 7701
Joined: 12 Jul 2013 23:09
Location: PA → IN

Re: Quick Diachronics Challenge

Post by shimobaatar »

sangi39 wrote: 25 Oct 2020 00:21
shimobaatar wrote: 25 Oct 2020 00:19 Just an update: I have received and prepared my responses to Ratsawn and ɶʙ ɞʛ's second guesses, but as before, I'm not going to post them yet in case sangi39 is planning to submit a second attempt, or in case anyone else wants to jump in.
I am [:)] Just need a few days, I think. Trying not to rush it, but understand that I can't be too slow either, for the sake of other people wanting to take part [:)]
I'm glad to hear it, and no worries! Naturally I can only speak for myself, but I'm personally fine with waiting.
Ratsawn
rupestrian
rupestrian
Posts: 13
Joined: 31 Aug 2020 23:17

Re: Quick Diachronics Challenge

Post by Ratsawn »

No rush here either. Take your time.
User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 2718
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 01:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

Re: Quick Diachronics Challenge

Post by sangi39 »

Hoping I'm at least a little bit closer. Trying to work out the branching, considering I got it so very wrong at the more "modern" stages, was a bit tricky, but I hope with better reconstructions I managed to figure it out a little better.
Spoiler:

Code: Select all

A  [ˈgoðɛ̃ː]  - [əːɖɔ̃ːˈðĩəspo] - [tʼaˈkxɔ̃ːɖəː]  - [bɛ̃ˈkʼuðiθagu]   - [iˈðekxə̃ː]
B  [ˈvoziɲ]  - [ɳɳaˈziməff]   - [paˈɣaɳɳəɻ]    - [mexˈxuzitɕav]   - [ˈzeɣəm]
AB [ˈɣʷoðiɲ] - [əɳaˈðiməspo]  - [twaˈxaɳɖəɻ]   - [ʔemˈkuðitɕaɣʷu] - [iˈðexəm]

Code: Select all

C  [ˈħem]   - [rɨnˈdzimpʰo]  - [toħˈlandʒɨ]   - [jemˈpʼiːtsɔ]   - [ˈdʒlemɨ]
D  [ˈħyəm]  - [ɹn̩ˈdzɪɱfa]    - [taħˈɫandz]    - [ʔɛmˈpəʏso]     - [ʔɪˈzɛɫm]
CD [ˈħøːm]  - [rɨnˈdzimpʰo]  - [toħˈlandʒɨ]   - [jemˈpʼytsɔ]    - [iˈdʒelemɨ]

Code: Select all

E  [ˈʔun]   - [ɹaˈzaɪfs]     - [tʊˈɫað]       - [ʔɛfˈkaʊsa]     - [ˈzɛɫ]
F  [ˈwoːŋ]  - [jerˈdziffe]   - [tuˈloːde]     - [jeˈkpuːtsa]    - [jeˈdzeːle]
EF [ˈʔoːn]  - [r̩ˈdzi:fsə]    - [tulaːdə]      - [epˈkuːtsa]     - [iˈdzɛlə]

Code: Select all

G  [ˈhuːŋ]  - [retˈtsisse]   - [sexˈxɔːreŋ]   - [jekˈkyːtɔ]     - [jeˈgiːleŋ]
H  [ˈhom]   - [r̩ˈdzɪs]       - [ˈsxarn]       - [ɪˈcuːðɐ]       - [ˈʝeʊm]
GH [ˈhoːm]  - [r̩ːˈdzissə]    - [ˈsxɔːren]     - [jekˈky:ta]     - [eˈgilem]

Code: Select all

I  [ˈsum]   - [ˈrɛnʒes]      - [ˈsoʎən]       - [ˈwɪŋketæ]      - [ˈsiʎəm]
J  [ˈsõɪ]   - [ˈrjɛ̃dĩzo]     - [ˈtolɔ̃ɐ]       - [ˈŋõʊpæda]      - [ˈŋiəɮã]
IJ [ˈsojm] - [ˈrɛndiso]     - [ˈtoʎaʁin]     - [ˈʔemketa]       - [ˈhijəlm]

Code: Select all

K  [ˈsũvɛ]  - [rɐ̃ˈnĩdɐ]      - [tʊˈʃẽɪ]       - [dɛ̃ˈŋœʏdɐ]      - [ħɪˈʕĩː]
L  [ˈsoʊn]  - [r̩ˈɲinz]       - [ˈtʃæːrin]     - [ʒeŋˈgiːto]     - [ˈkʰeɪlin]
KL [ˈsoum]  - [rˈnindɐ]      - [ˈtæːrin]      - [dʒeŋˈgyːto]    - [ˈħeɪlin]

Code: Select all

M  [ˈzwaʒu] - [ɳɛˈnaɪʒo]     - [twiˈɲɛɻu]     - [ʒjaˈguʃaʊ]     - [jiˈwemʲu]
N  [ˈzuːʒo] - [ˈnaːneːzo]    - [ˈtyːnaːʒo]    - [ˈʒiːguʒʒoː]    - [ˈjeʒʒeːmo]
MN [ˈzoːʒu] - [ɳɛːˈniːzo]    - [ˈtyːɲaːɻu]    - [ˈʒeːgutʃoː]    - [ˈjeʎeimu]

Code: Select all

O  [ˈzʌːʒe] - [ˈdʒʌːlɯːzo]   - [ˈtubbʌːje]    - [ˈʒʌːguddʒaf]   - [ˈdʒoːme]
P  [ˈzaʒa]  - [jɛˈlɯzo]      - [tuˈwɔje]      - [ʒaˈgutʃa]      - [ˈjeːma]
OP [ˈzoːʒe] - [ˈʒaːlɯːzo]    - [tuˈwɔje]      - [ʒeˈguttʃaf]    - [ˈjaːma]

Code: Select all

Q  [ˈrɔɪz]  - [ɦɔˈjeɪra]     - [taxˈxɔɐ]      - [zɛˈgʏtta]      - [gaˈɣeɐm]
R  [ˈzwɛʃ]  - [ɣəjˈjez]      - [ˈtxwɛx]       - [ʒəˈguddə]      - [ˈɣɣem̥x]
QR [ˈzɔɪʒ]  - [ɣɛɪˈjeɪza]    - [taˈʁɔɪʁ]      - [ʒeˈgutta]      - [ɣəˈɣemə]



Code: Select all

AB [ˈɣʷoðiɲ] - [əɳaˈðiməspo]  - [twaˈxaɳɖəɻ]   - [ʔemˈkuðitɕaɣʷu] - [iˈðexəm]

Code: Select all

CD [ˈħøːm]  - [rɨnˈdzimpʰo]  - [toħˈlandʒɨ]   - [jemˈpʼytsɔ]    - [iˈdʒeleme]
EF [ˈʔoːn]  - [r̩ˈdzi:fsə]    - [tulaːdə]      - [epˈkuːtsa]     - [iˈdzɛlə]
CF [ˈhoim]  - [rənˈdzimpso]  - [toħˈlandɨ]    - [jemˈkutsɔ]     - [iˈdʒelem]

Code: Select all

GH [ˈhoːm]  - [r̩ːˈdzissə]    - [ˈsxɔːren]     - [jekˈky:ta]     - [eˈgilem]
IJ [ˈsojm]  - [ˈrɛndiso]     - [ˈtoʎaʁin]     - [ˈʔemketa]      - [ˈhijəlm]
GJ [ˈsojm]  - [r̩nˈdzisso]    - [ˈtoɬarin]     - [ˈʔemketa]      - [ˈhigilm]

Code: Select all

KL [ˈsoum]  - [rˈnindɐ]      - [ˈtæːrin]      - [dʒeŋˈgyːto]    - [ˈħeɪlin]

Code: Select all

MN [ˈzoːʒu] - [ɳɛːˈniːzo]    - [ˈtyːɲaːɻu]    - [ˈʒeːgutʃoː]    - [ˈjeʎeimu]
OP [ˈzoːʒe] - [ˈʒaːlɯːzo]    - [tuˈwɔje]      - [ʒeˈguttʃaf]    - [ˈjaːma]
MP [ˈzoːʒo] - [ˈɻandiːzo]    - [tuˈlɔːɻe]     - [ʒeˈguttʃof]    - [ˈjeleiːmu]

Code: Select all

QR [ˈzɔɪʒ]  - [ɣɛɪˈjeɪza]    - [taˈʁɔɪʁ]      - [ʒeˈgutta]      - [ɣəˈɣemə]



Code: Select all

AB [ˈɣʷoðiɲ] - [əɳaˈðiməspo]  - [twaˈxaɳɖəɻ]   - [ʔemˈkuðitɕaɣʷu] - [iˈðexəm]
CF [ˈhoim]   - [rənˈdzimpso]  - [toħˈlandɨ]    - [jemˈkutsɔ]      - [iˈdʒelem]
AF [ˈħoðim]  - [ranˈdziməspo] - [toˈʎ̝andər]    - [ʔemˈkudzitsaħu] - [iˈdʒeʎ̝əm]

Code: Select all

GJ [ˈsojm]   - [r̩nˈdzisso]    - [ˈtoɬarin]     - [ˈʔemketa]       - [ˈhigilm]
KL [ˈsoum]   - [rˈnindɐ]      - [ˈtæːrin]      - [dʒeŋˈgyːto]     - [ˈħeɪlin]
GL [ˈsojum]  - [r̩nˈdimsto]    - [ˈtoɬarin]     - [ˈjemˈkø:ta]     - [ˈħigilim]

Code: Select all

MP [ˈzoːʒo]  - [ˈɻandiːzo]    - [tuˈlɔ:ɻe]     - [ʒeˈguttʃof]     - [ˈjeleiːmu]
QR [ˈzɔɪʒ]   - [ɣɛɪˈjeɪza]    - [taˈʁɔɪʁ]      - [ʒeˈgutta]       - [ɣəˈɣemə]
MR [ˈzɔɪʒo]  - [randiːzo]     - [toˈɫɔ:re]     - [ʒeˈguttʃof]     - [ħəˈɣeimu]



Code: Select all

AF [ˈħoðim]  - [ranˈdziməspo] - [toˈʎ̝andər]    - [ʔemˈkudzitsaħu] - [iˈdʒeʎ̝əm]

Code: Select all

GL [ˈsojum]  - [r̩nˈdimsto]    - [ˈtoɬarin]     - [ˈjemˈkø:ta]     - [ˈħigilim]
MR [ˈzɔɪʒo]  - [randiːzo]     - [toˈɫɔ:re]     - [ʒeˈguttʃof]     - [ħəˈɣeimu]
GR [ˈsoʒum]  - [ranˈdimsto]   - [ˈtoɬarin]     - [ˈjemˈkøttax]     - [ˈħegi:ləm]



Code: Select all

AF [ˈħoðim]  - [ranˈdziməspo] - [toˈʎ̝andər]    - [ʔemˈkudzitsaħu]  - [iˈdʒeʎ̝əm]
GR [ˈsoʒum]  - [ranˈdimsto]   - [ˈtoɬarin]     - [ˈjemˈkøttax]     - [ˈħegi:ləm]
AR [ˈsoʒum]  - [ranˈdiməspo]  - [ˈtoʎ̝andən]    - [ˈjemˈkodzitsaxu] - [ˈħegi:ʎ̝əm]
You can tell the same lie a thousand times,
But it never gets any more true,
So close your eyes once more and once more believe
That they all still believe in you.
Just one time.
shimobaatar
korean
korean
Posts: 7701
Joined: 12 Jul 2013 23:09
Location: PA → IN

Re: Quick Diachronics Challenge

Post by shimobaatar »

I've seen and prepared my response to sangi39's most recent attempt. Before posting them, I do want to quickly look back over my responses to all three of you in order to hopefully catch any mistakes on my part. I expect them to be ready on Tuesday (tomorrow, in my time zone at least) or Wednesday at the latest. Thank you all for your patience!
shimobaatar
korean
korean
Posts: 7701
Joined: 12 Jul 2013 23:09
Location: PA → IN

Re: Quick Diachronics Challenge

Post by shimobaatar »

In response to Ratsawn's second attempt:
Spoiler:
Ratsawn wrote: 20 Oct 2020 22:14 AB: [ˈʁoðiɲ] - [əᶯɖaˈðiməspo] - [twaˈgaɳɖəɻ] - [meˈkuðit͡ɕaʁu] - [iˈðekʰəm]
Word 1 - You were closer with the initial last time. The rest is correct, however. Please see below for more information. 
Word 2 - [-ᶯɖ-] is off. This part of the word may be difficult to reconstruct, but you're on the right track in terms of POA and the fact that there's some nasal element.
Word 3 - [g] is close! The rest is correct. Please see below for more information. 
Word 4 - There's a segment missing, and [ʁ] is incorrect. Please see below for more information. 
Word 5 - Please see my comments on Word 3.
Ratsawn wrote: 20 Oct 2020 22:14 The two things that baffle me here are the g - v and k͡x - ɣ correspondences.
 
For the former, AB’s closest relatives, CD and EF, would suggest some consonant far back in POA. Because of the reflexes in A and B, I’ve elected to choose ʁ, but I’m not certain of that.
 
For the latter, it looks like a k would be appropriate, but we already have k becoming k’ and x in the daughters, so rather than extrapolate some condition, I’ve chosen kʰ. I also briefly considered g, but the affricate suggested aspiration as a cause, and B could easily have removed the aspiration before the voicing and frication stages.
I get the feeling that you may be overthinking both of these correspondences. 

If you're defining "far back in POA" as uvular, pharyngeal/epiglottal, or glottal, then no, that's not how I'd describe the common ancestor of [g] in A and [v] in B. I'm not sure what I can say that will be helpful but won't make things too easy. The consonant you're looking for appears three times in these five words in AB. You've correctly identified it once, in the one instance where it doesn't end up as [g] or [v] because of its environment. 

For the [k͡x] : [ɣ] correspondence, the reflexes already agree in POA. One will help you figure out the voicing of the original segment, and the other will help you figure out its MOA. 

Ratsawn wrote: 20 Oct 2020 22:14 CDː [ˈħøːm] - [rɨnˈd͡zimpʰo] - [toħˈɫand͡zɨ] - [ʔemˈp’yːt͡sɔ] - [ʔiˈd͡ʒelmɨ]
Word 1 - Spot-on!
Word 2 - Spot-on! 
Word 3 - One segment is off. Please see below for more details. 
Word 4 - One vowel is partially off.
Word 5 - Spot-on!
Ratsawn wrote: 20 Oct 2020 22:14 Word 3 seemed complex. Your comment about 2 segments being off didn’t leave a lot of room within the daughters for changes. Obviously the t, ħ, a, and n were no change from CD. Vowel loss made the most sense for the final vowel, and you didn’t say there were too many segments, so I kept that the same, and the d͡ʒ - d͡z correspondence lent itself to palatalization and matched up with other related languages. I’ve here decided to choose the other reflex that I didn’t choose last time for o - a and l - ɫ.
Everything you've written here is right, up until the mention of the affricate. [l] was correct, but I'd feel ridiculous counting [ɫ] as wrong. 

Ratsawn wrote: 20 Oct 2020 22:14 EFː [ˈʔoːn] - [eraˈd͡ziːfsə] - [tuˈlaːdə] - [ʔepˈkuːt͡sa] - [ʔiˈd͡zelə]
Word 1 - Spot-on! 
Word 2 - One incorrect segment.
Word 3 - Spot-on!
Word 4 - Spot-on!
Word 5 - One incorrect segment. 
Ratsawn wrote: 20 Oct 2020 22:14 The only thing I’m really unsure about is the final vowel in 2, 3, and 5. It looks like it should be e, but you’ve identified it as wrong. Based on immediate cognates having central vowels in many cases, I’m trying ə and assuming it moved to e in F.
That's correct! In E, schwa was deleted while other unstressed short vowels were retained, and in F, schwa merged with [e]. This information should be helpful moving forward with the two remaining incorrect segments here as well.

Ratsawn wrote: 20 Oct 2020 22:14 ABCDEFː [ˈħoːn] - [ranˈd͡zinəpso] - [tuˈɫandəɻ] - [ʔempˈkuːt͡sa] - [iˈdeɫəm]
Word 1 - The vowel is partially correct, I'll say. Please see below for more details. 
Word 2 - [d͡z] is close, perhaps close enough to be essentially correct. The second [n] is incorrect. Additionally, the missing vowel I mentioned last time was inserted in the wrong place, although its quality is correct. 
Word 3 - Please see my response below.
Word 4 - The stressed vowel is off in the same way as the vowel in Word 1. The final vowel is also off. [t͡s] is close, perhaps close enough to be essentially correct.
Word 5 - Please see my response below. 

As I mentioned above, in most cases, I'm not going to count it as incorrect if you have [ɫ] where I have [l]. 
Ratsawn wrote: 20 Oct 2020 22:14 As for word 1, I’m not sure about the initial, but I am fairly certain it is an obstruent that is uvular or further back. My choice here is fairly arbitrary, I expect to keep guessing until I pick the right one.
Indeed, "an obstruent that is uvular or further back" is correct. You're off in terms of POA alone. 
Ratsawn wrote: 20 Oct 2020 22:14 Word 3 and 4 are essentially educated guesswork, so comments on those will be appreciated.
My comments on Word 4 can be found above. 

For Word 3, you're missing a segment. Both of the consonants you removed from your previous reconstruction were indeed incorrect, but one of them was in the position of this missing segment. 

I'm trying to think of what I can say about [-əɻ] without just telling you what I'm looking for. You're right about there being a rhotic, but not about its identity, so to speak. Also, and I apologize for how vague this sounds, but there's something "structurally" off about [-əɻ] as a sequence. It might help to think about the different POAs of the preceding consonants in Word 3's reflexes.   
Ratsawn wrote: 20 Oct 2020 22:14 In word 5, I believe the two unnecessary segments were the initial glottal stop (which must have been a feature added to vowel initial words in CD and EF) and the k. I think I can explain the velar reflex in AB as a dark ɫ, making that the slight change I needed. As for the off vowels and the fully correct consonant, I hope this is correct.
I'll tell you that, at least for members of the A-F branch, I've decided to count [ʔ-] and a null initial as equally correct. However, the [k] was indeed one of the two segments I was referring to. [ɫ] isn't what I have, but again, I'm not going trying to split hairs here. [d] is not correct, but [i-] is. [-əm] has the same "structural" problem as [-əɻ] in Word 3. 


Ratsawn wrote: 20 Oct 2020 22:14 GHː [ˈhoːm] - [rədˈd͡zissə] - [səxˈxaːrn] - [jekˈkuːta] - [ˈgeːləm]
Word 1 - Spot-on!
Word 2 - Spot-on!
Word 3 - Spot-on!
Word 4 - The pretonic vowel is incorrect. It may help to make comparisons with Word 2. 
Word 5 - All of the segments are correct, but one is in the wrong place. Please see below for more details. 
Ratsawn wrote: 20 Oct 2020 22:14 I’m assuming that many of the incorrect vowels should be schwa, with the e reflex being an areal effect shared between F and G.
Correct!
Ratsawn wrote: 20 Oct 2020 22:14 In word 5, your comments indicate that je- should be removed, but I can’t figure out why it appeared in G then. Insight would be appreciated.
That is not what I intended to indicate, my apologies. It may help to know that the stressed syllable of Word 5 is very similar in structure to the stressed syllable of Word 3. 

Ratsawn wrote: 20 Oct 2020 22:14 IJː [ˈsom] - [ˈrɛndĩːso] - [ˈt͡solən] - [ˈwiŋkeːtaː] - [ˈhilam]
Word 1 - The three segments that you have are correct. Please see below for more information. 
Word 2 - Very close! One consonant is off. In this regard, your previous reconstruction was closer.
Word 3 - [ˈt͡so-n] is correct. [-l-] is partially correct. Please see below for more information. 
Word 4 - The consonants are all correct, but one is in the wrong place. Two of the vowels are correct. 
Word 5 - Everything that you have is correct. Please see below for more information. 
Ratsawn wrote: 20 Oct 2020 22:14 You said that three words are missing a syllable, and I know that those words are 2, 3, and 4, but the reflexes in the daughter langs are so divergent that I don’t know where to start, so I’m ignoring that for this round. Assistance/hints would be appreciated.
Word 3 is indeed missing a syllable, but Words 2 and 4 are not. The segments you've reconstructed for Words 1 and 5 are all correct, as I've noted above, but both of these words are missing a syllable as well. 

It may help to know that I is characterized by the loss or reduction of unstressed vowels followed by the simplification of certain clusters, while J is characterized by the lenition or complete loss of intervocalic consonants followed by the coalescence of vowels in hiatus into, ultimately, diphthongs. 

Ratsawn wrote: 20 Oct 2020 22:14 KL: [ˈsoːme] - [reˈnindo] - [tuʃˈʃæːrin] - [ʒeŋˈgyːto] - [ˈχeɪ̯lin]
Word 1 - Spot-on!
Word 2 - Please see my response below. 
Word 3 - Spot-on!
Word 4 - Close! The initial consonant and final vowel are both slightly off.
Word 5 - [-eɪ̯lin] is correct. Please see below for more information. 
Ratsawn wrote: 20 Oct 2020 22:14 The vowels in word 2 elude me. I’m going to say for now that the mid vowels of KL collapsed to ɐ, at least when unstressed. I’m thinking that the emergence of ɛ in word 1 must’ve happened later.
Only the pretonic vowel is incorrect. [ɐ] would be very close. 

Otherwise, you were correct about [d͡z] in your previous reconstruction. The first [-n-] is the issue. It's partially correct, however. 
Ratsawn wrote: 20 Oct 2020 22:14 The initial in word 5 seems to be some kind of unvoiced back fricative, though I can’t say I’ve ever heard of a fricative becoming an aspirated stop, so I’m not sure.
The initial consonant of Word 5 is indeed "some kind of unvoiced back fricative". [χ] isn't exactly what I had in mind, but it's not POA that's the problem.

As for fricatives becoming aspirated stops, the Index Diachronica lists, for example, either [x] or [ɣ] becoming [kʰ] in a number of Tai languages, but that's not what's going on here. There is not a one-to-one correspondence between [ħ] in K and [kʰ] in L, or in fact between [kʰ] in L and any single segment in K.
Ratsawn wrote: 20 Oct 2020 22:14 Once again, the syllabification issue is not showing up to me (I attempted on word 3), any comments would be appreciated.
You made an attempt with Word 3 and got it exactly right! As my comments above have hopefully hinted, Word 5 is also missing a syllable.  

Ratsawn wrote: 20 Oct 2020 22:14 GHIJKLː [ˈsoːm] - [rɛnˈdinso] - [t͡soʃˈʃaːren] - [ʒeŋˈkuːta] - [jeˈgeːlem]
Word 1 - The consonants are correct, and the vowel is partially correct. 
Word 2 - The pretonic vowel is incorrect.
Word 3 - [r] and [n] are both correct, and [aː] is partially correct. The overall structure of the word is correct as well.
Word 4 - [-eŋˈk-t-] is correct. The other two vowels are partially correct.
Word 5 - [g], [l], and [m] are all correct, and [eː] is partially correct. The overall structure of the word is correct as well.

One of these words is missing a syllable.  
Ratsawn wrote: 20 Oct 2020 22:14 I hope I’ve interpreted the one incorrect vowel and consonant in word 2 correctly.
You made the right choice with [d], and you correctly identified which vowel was incorrect, but its quality is still off. 


Ratsawn wrote: 20 Oct 2020 22:14 MNː [ˈzoːʒu] - [ɳæːˈnaɪ̯zo] - [twiˈɳæːɻu] - [ʒeːˈguʒʒaʊ̯] - [jiwˈweɪ̯mu]
Word 1 - The consonants and final vowel are correct.
Word 2 - Very close! The quality of the pretonic vowel is off. 
Word 3 - [t-ɻu] is correct. The stressed vowel is off in the same way as the pretonic vowel in Word 2. I'd say that [-wi-] is, in a way, close. 
Word 4 - Only the pretonic vowel is off.
Word 5 - Please see my response below. 
Ratsawn wrote: 20 Oct 2020 22:14 The medial consonant(s) in word 5 is tough. I am thinking that maybe a w fortified and then palatalized in N, and that the original geminate was simply lost in M.
You're very close! In fact, the only thing that's off about [jiwˈweɪ̯mu] is the identity, so to speak, of the medial geminate. Fortition did take place in N. In M, the geminate was lost completely, not just shortened. 

Ratsawn wrote: 20 Oct 2020 22:14 OPː [ˈzʌːʒə] - [jʌːˈlɯːzo] - [tuwˈwʌːje] - [ʒʌːˈgudd͡ʒaf] - [ˈjeumə]
Word 1 - Spot-on! 
Word 2 - Spot-on!
Word 3 - Spot-on!
Word 4 - Spot-on!
Word 5 - Spot-on!
Ratsawn wrote: 20 Oct 2020 22:14 As for the vowels with the reflex ʌː in O, I think that that vowel may have split into separate reflexes in P from one original phoneme.
Yes, precisely! Excellent work!

Ratsawn wrote: 20 Oct 2020 22:14 QRː [ˈzɔɪ̯ʒ] - [ʁɔːˈjeɪ̯za] - [təʍˈʍɔɪ̯ɣ] - [ʒɛˈgudda] - [ɣəˈɣeːmə]
Word 1 - Spot-on!
Word 2 - The consonants and the stressed vowel are correct. 
Word 3 - [tə-ɔɪ̯-] is correct. Please see below for more information. 
Word 4 - Spot-on! 
Word 5 - [ɣəˈɣ-m] is correct. The stressed vowel is partially correct. There's a segment that doesn't need to be there, and another that's missing. Please see below for more details. 
Ratsawn wrote: 20 Oct 2020 22:14 The geminate in word 3 doesn’t make sense to me. In both daughters, it is realized by an x, but you said that it is wrong. I’m just gonna guess then.
I see your point. I'll try my best to explain my reasoning. 

When I said last time that one of the consonants in your reconstruction of Word 3 was off only in terms of voicing, I was referring to the medial geminate. Without giving away the identity of the final consonant, what I have is [təɣˈɣɔɪ̯-].

In Q, as you seem to have already figured out based on your reconstruction of Word 4, geminate voiced obstruents devoice. In R, as you also seem to have figured out, schwa is deleted. This results in initial [tɣɣ-]. Geminates shorten in clusters and voicing assimilation takes place. 

The main reason I didn't count [-xx-] as correct, despite the fact that original [-ɣɣ-] does end up being devoiced in both Q and R, is that the environment which conditioned the devoicing in R only arose after the "breakup", so to speak, of QR. Also, I feel that voiced [-ɣɣ-] is more helpful when it comes to higher-level reconstructions. 
Ratsawn wrote: 20 Oct 2020 22:14 
In word 5, I was thinking that maybe a final vowel devoiced and fortified to a consonant, but this may be a reach.
You were closer with [-mx], I'll say. 

Ratsawn wrote: 20 Oct 2020 22:14 MNOPQRː [ˈzɔːʒu] - [ɦɔːˈneɪ̯zo] - [tuˈŋaːjə] - [ʒeːˈguddav] - [jəɣˈɣemə]
Word 1 - The consonants are correct. Please see below for more information.
Word 2 - [-zo] is correct. Please see below for more information.
Word 3 - [tu-ə] is correct. [aː] is very close. Please see below for more information.
Word 4 - [-dd-] is partially incorrect. This should be a cluster rather than a geminate. [eː] is very close. Please see below for more information.
Word 5 - [-ˈɣe-mə] is correct. 
Ratsawn wrote: 20 Oct 2020 22:14 The initial in word 2 seems to be a back consonant from its reflexes in QR. I could see it approximating and nasalizing in the other branches due to rhinoglottophilia, but it still seems shaky with the value I’ve given it.
It was not a back consonant. As for nasalization, my comments below may be helpful.
Ratsawn wrote: 20 Oct 2020 22:14 In word 3, you said a vowel is missing two features. The only things that I would consider a feature are length and diphthongisation. Would you mind defining a vowel feature so I can better interpret your comments, because it doesn’t seem likely to be a long diphthong.
I'll just tell you that I'm talking about nasalization here. Words 1, 2, 3, and 4 all have at least one nasal vowel. Two of the vowels in your current reconstructions are only off because they aren't nasalized. 


Ratsawn wrote: 20 Oct 2020 22:14 A-Rː [ˈsoʒom] - [ranˈdempso] - [tonˈlantaɻ] - [ʒemˈkuddav] - [jəˈgelem]
Word 1 - Three correct segments
Word 2 - Seven correct segments
Word 3 - Four correct segments
Word 4 - Five correct segments
Word 5 - Four correct segments 

You've also gotten much closer structurally on Words 3, 4, and 5.  
Ratsawn wrote: 20 Oct 2020 22:14 The structure of word three is still unclear. It seems like it should be CVNGVNCVɻ, where G is an approximate. Though, the presence of the first nasal seems contested, and the approximate could have come from a fricative, explaining the reflex in GHIJKL. I’m not sure yet.
You're correct about there being an approximant, but its placement is slightly off. I would recommend reevaluating your reasons for reconstructing that first nasal. 
Ratsawn wrote: 20 Oct 2020 22:14 The nasal in word 3 appears to be present, but its POA may not match the following consonant. If it is labial, that would explain the appearance of p in ABCDEF to bridge the gap between m and k.
I'm assuming you meant Word 4 here. You're spot-on about [-mk-].
shimobaatar
korean
korean
Posts: 7701
Joined: 12 Jul 2013 23:09
Location: PA → IN

Re: Quick Diachronics Challenge

Post by shimobaatar »

In response to ɶʙ ɞʛ's second attempt:
Spoiler:
In my responses below, I've only commented on the segments you've reconstructed, but I'd like to reiterate that I will not accept anything as completely correct if the placement of stress is either indicated incorrectly or not indicated at all. 

ɶʙ ɞʛ wrote: 21 Oct 2020 20:07 AB [ɣod͡zin] – [ɳɖand͡ziməspo] – [twakaɳɖəɻ] – [mbek:ud͡zit͡saɣu] – [id͡zekəm]
Word 1 - The initial and final consonants are incorrect.
Word 2 - [-a-d͡ziməspo] is correct. One of the other consonants is also correct, but its placement is off. There's a syllable missing. 
Word 3 - Only [-k-] is incorrect.
Word 4 - The vowels, [m-], [d͡z], and [t͡s] are correct. As I mentioned last time, [kː] is partially correct. 
Word 5 - Only [-k-] is incorrect. 

As I mentioned last time, I'll accept [d͡z] and [t͡s] here, at least for now.  

ɶʙ ɞʛ wrote: 21 Oct 2020 20:07 CD [ħø:m] – [rɨndimpʰɒ] – [tɒħlandi] – [emp’y:tɒu] – [idelmɨ]
Word 1 - All segments are correct. 
Word 2 - One consonant and one vowel are incorrect. For one of these, your previous reconstruction was closer. 
Word 3 - [-a-] is correct, as are four of the consonants. 
Word 4 - The final syllable is incorrect. 
Word 5 - All correct, except for [-d-]. 
ɶʙ ɞʛ wrote: 21 Oct 2020 20:07 *CD /l/ seems to correspond to AB /x/ - maybe an initial cluster /ɣl/ in Proto-AF?
*Similarly, AB /g/, CD /ħ/, EF /h/ coming from initial /ɣ/
You are correct about the correspondence between A [k͡x], B [ɣ], C [l], and D [ɫ], as I mentioned last time. It could indeed also be said that there's a correspondence between A [g-], B [v-], C & D [ħ-], E [ʔ-], and F [w-] in Word 1. 

However, both of your proposed explanations are incorrect. 

ɶʙ ɞʛ wrote: 21 Oct 2020 20:07 EF [ho:n] – [ered͡zi:fs] – [tula:de] – [hepku:t͡sa] – [ʔed͡ze:le]
Word 1 - Two segments are correct. The initial consonant is quite close. 
Word 2 - [-r-d͡ziːfs-] is correct. There's a syllable missing. 
Word 3 - The final vowel is incorrect.
Word 4 - The initial consonant here is off in the same way as the initial consonant of Word 1. The remaining segments are correct.  
Word 5 - The consonants are all correct. One vowel is partially correct. 

ɶʙ ɞʛ wrote: 21 Oct 2020 20:07 Proto-AF: [ɣod͡zim] – [erand͡zimspo] – [toɣlandir] – [empku:d͡zit͡saɣu] – [id͡zeɣlem]
Word 1 - [-o-] is partially correct. 
Word 2 - The quality of the first vowel is off, but all of the other vowels are correct. The consonants are all correct as well, but two are in the incorrect order.
Word 3 - [t-land-] is correct. [-r] is at least partially correct as well. 
Word 4 - [empk-] is correct, and I'll count [-t͡s-] as correct as well. Two of the remaining vowels are partially correct. 
Word 5 - The first two vowels are correct. [-l-] is also correct, and [-m] is at least partially correct. 

Please note that, at this stage, I can only count [d͡z] as essentially correct in Word 2.

One of these words has one extra syllable, and another has two extra syllables. 


ɶʙ ɞʛ wrote: 21 Oct 2020 20:07 GH [ho:m] – [ret͡s:is:e] – [sex:a:ren] – [hek:u:ta] – [egi:lem]
Word 1 - All segments are correct.
Word 2 - [r-iss-] is correct. 
Word 3 - All of the consonants are correct. One vowel is correct, one is off in terms of quality, and the third doesn't need to be there. 
Word 4 - [-kkuːta] is correct.
Word 5 - The consonants are correct. 

I've slightly changed the formatting of Word 3 here to avoid :a:

ɶʙ ɞʛ wrote: 21 Oct 2020 20:07 IJ [som] – [rendems] – [tol:on] – [hwemketa] – [hil:am]
Word 1 - The three segments that you've reconstructed are correct. 
Word 2 - [r-n-s-] is correct.
Word 3 - [-oll-n] is correct. 
Word 4 - Only [-k-] and [-t-] are entirely correct. Another consonant is correct, but in the wrong place. Two of the vowels are off in terms of quantity. One of the consonants you changed from your previous reconstruction was correct. 
Word 5 - [hi-am] is correct. [-ll-] is partially correct.

As I mentioned last time, four of these five words are missing a syllable. 

ɶʙ ɞʛ wrote: 21 Oct 2020 20:07 KL [sume] – [ranind͡za] – [tuʃa:rin] – [d͡zeŋgoito] – [xeilin]
Word 1 - [-u-] is incorrect.
Word 2 - The first [-n-] is partially correct. The final vowel is incorrect. 
Word 3 - [-ʃ-] is partially correct.
Word 4 - [-eŋg-t-] is correct. You're on the right track with the initial consonant, and one other vowel is only off in terms of quantity. 
Word 5 - [x-eɪ̯lin] is correct. There's a syllable missing.

ɶʙ ɞʛ wrote: 21 Oct 2020 20:07 Proto-GL [sume] – [randimsa] – [t͡soɣlorin] – [swemkoita] - [keɣilem]
Word 1 - The consonants are correct.
Word 2 - [randi-s-] is correct.
Word 3 - Only [-r-] and [-n] are fully correct, but the overall structure of the word is fairly close. 
Word 4 - The first vowel, [-k-], and [-t-] are all correct. The other two vowels are off in different ways, but are both partially correct. 
Word 5 - Only [-l-] and [-m] are fully correct, but the overall structure of the word is fairly close. 
ɶʙ ɞʛ wrote: 21 Oct 2020 20:07 * k > x > h word initially to IJ
*x > ħ in K
The first change did not take place, but the second ([x] > [ħ] in K) is essentially correct. 


ɶʙ ɞʛ wrote: 21 Oct 2020 20:07 MN [zo:ʒo] – [ɳanaizo] – [tu:ɲaɻo] – [ʒe:guʒʒau] – [jeʒwe:mo]
Word 1 - The consonants are correct. 
Word 2 - [ɳ-naɪ̯zo] is correct. 
Word 3 - Only [t-] and [-ɻ-] are completely correct. The first vowel is partially correct, I'd say.
Word 4 - Only the first vowel is off. 
Word 5 - [j-] and [-m-] are correct. I'd say that [eː] is partially correct, however. 

ɶʙ ɞʛ wrote: 21 Oct 2020 20:07 OP [zaʒe] – [jalɯzo] – [tuvaje] – [ʒagudd͡ʒaf] – [jeume]
Word 1 - The consonants are correct.
Word 2 - The consonants and the final vowel are correct. One other vowel is only off in terms of length. 
Word 3 - [tu-je] is correct. 
Word 4 - Only the first vowel is off. 
Word 5 - [jeʊ̯m-] is correct. 
ɶʙ ɞʛ wrote: 21 Oct 2020 20:07 *a: > /ʌ:/ in O
*final e > a except after /j/ in P
These are both incorrect.

ɶʙ ɞʛ wrote: 21 Oct 2020 20:07 QR – [zwɛjs] – [ɣɔj:ezə] – [taxwɛx] – [ʒeguttə] – [gəɣexm]
Word 1 - Your previous reconstruction was much closer. 
Word 2 - [-e-] and [-jj-] are both partially correct. The other two vowels and [-z-] are fully correct. 
Word 3 - [t-] is correct. The second vowel of your previous reconstruction was closer. 
Word 4 - The first two consonants and [-u-] are correct. 
Word 5 - [-əɣe-m] is correct. You're very close with the remaining two consonants. One is off in terms of MOA and the other is off in terms of voicing. 

ɶʙ ɞʛ wrote: 21 Oct 2020 20:07 Proto-MR [zoiso] – [rnanlaizo] – [toɣnoje] – [ʒeguttjau] – [gajexm]
Word 1 - [z-] is correct. The nucleus of the first syllable is, in one way, partially correct. 
Word 2 - [r-zo] is correct. The quality of the first vowel is correct, but it's off in two other ways. 
Word 3 - [t-] and [-ɣ-] are correct. 
Word 4 - [ʒ-] and [-gu-] are correct. The quality of the first vowel is correct, and the nucleus of the final syllable is, in one way, partially correct. 
Word 5 - [-e-m-] is correct. Your previous reconstruction was closer. 


ɶʙ ɞʛ wrote: 21 Oct 2020 20:07 Proto-AR: [sɣuzme] – [rnanzimso]  - [toɣlandir] – [swemkuzitau] – [geɣlem̥]
Word 1 - Two correct segments
Word 2 - Seven correct segments
Word 3 - Five correct segments
Word 4 - Seven correct segments
Word 5 - Three correct segments
ɶʙ ɞʛ wrote: 21 Oct 2020 20:07 Proto-AF: [ɣod͡zim] – [erand͡zimspo] – [toɣlandir] – [empku:d͡zit͡saɣu] – [id͡zeɣlem]
z > d͡z, but *g palatalizes to d͡z; *au develops epenthetic *ɣ, initial *s deleted, *we > *e
Nothing like [z] > [d͡z] or [we] > [e] took place.

Palatalization was involved, but I can't count [g] > [d͡z] as correct here.

You're also on the right track thinking in terms of epenthesis, but [ɣ] is incorrect.

Something did happen to initial [s-], but it wasn't deleted at this stage.
ɶʙ ɞʛ wrote: 21 Oct 2020 20:07 Proto-GL [sume] – [randimsa] – [t͡soɣlorin] – [swemkoita] - [keɣilem]
*z deleted intervocalically and in coda, but *nz > *nd, and *nd > *r. Devoicing of initial voiced stops, voiceless stops become aspirated and then affricated
None of these changes are correct. 
ɶʙ ɞʛ wrote: 21 Oct 2020 20:07 Proto-MR [zoiso] – [rnanlaizo] – [toɣnoje] – [ʒeguttjau] – [gajexm]
lan > lã > na, z > ð > l adjacent to nasals
You're on the right track with one of these two changes, but it didn't apply at this stage.
shimobaatar
korean
korean
Posts: 7701
Joined: 12 Jul 2013 23:09
Location: PA → IN

Re: Quick Diachronics Challenge

Post by shimobaatar »

In response to sangi39's second attempt:
Spoiler:
I've noted a number of instances where your reconstructions here are the same as those from your last attempt, despite those not being correct. Was this a copying error? Or did you choose not to make any changes in cases where you were unsure of what changes to make? If that's the case, please let me know whenever anything is unclear so that I can try to provide more helpful feedback. 

sangi39 wrote: 26 Oct 2020 23:25 AB [ˈɣʷoðiɲ] - [əɳaˈðiməspo]  - [twaˈxaɳɖəɻ]   - [ʔemˈkuðitɕaɣʷu] - [iˈðexəm]
Word 1 - The initial consonant is still off, but you are so very, very close.
Word 2 - Everything you have is correct, but there's a segment missing. Considering length in the daughter languages might help. 
Word 3 - Everything is correct, except for [-x-]. 
Word 4 - [-e-ˈkuðit͡ɕa-u] is correct. 
Word 5 - The only thing that's off is [-x-].

sangi39 wrote: 26 Oct 2020 23:25 CD [ˈħøːm]  - [rɨnˈdzimpʰo]  - [toħˈlandʒɨ]   - [jemˈpʼytsɔ]    - [iˈdʒelemɨ]
Word 1 - Spot-on!
Word 2 - Spot-on!
Word 3 - Spot-on!
Word 4 - Two vowels are off in terms of length. Please see below for more information. 
Word 5 - There is one vowel that does not need to be there. 

Last time, in response to [jɛmˈpʼyːtsɔ] for Word 4, I said that one vowel was off in terms of quality and another was off in terms of length. You made the right choice changing [-ɛ-] to [-e-], but shortening [-yː-] was incorrect. 

sangi39 wrote: 26 Oct 2020 23:25 EF [ˈʔoːn]  - [r̩ˈdzi:fsə]    - [tulaːdə]      - [epˈkuːtsa]     - [iˈdzɛlə]
Word 1 - Spot-on!
Word 2 - [-ˈd͡ziːfsə] is correct. There is still a syllable missing. There is an [r], but it's not syllabic. Please see below for more information. 
Word 3 - All of the segments are correct. It appears that the placement of stress has not been indicated, although you had it correct last time. 
Word 4 - Spot-on!
Word 5 - The consonants and the final vowel are correct. Please see below for more information. 

Just to clarify, my version of Word 2 is four syllables long.

Last time, in response to [eˈd͡zeːɫe] for Word 5, I said that two vowels were off in terms of quality and that the other was off in terms of length. You were correct in shortening the stressed vowel, but then you changed its quality as well. 

sangi39 wrote: 26 Oct 2020 23:25 GH [ˈhoːm]  - [r̩ːˈdzissə]    - [ˈsxɔːren]     - [jekˈky:ta]     - [eˈgilem]
Word 1 - Spot-on!
Word 2 - [-issə] is correct. [-d͡z-] is partially correct. There is an [r], but it's neither long nor syllabic. 
Word 3 - [-x-] is partially correct, and the other consonants are all correct. Please see below for more information. 
Word 4 - Two vowels are still off in terms of quality.
Word 5 - Two vowels are off in terms of quality, one is also off in terms of length, and the third doesn't need to be there. 

Last time, in response to [sexˈxaːren] for Word 3, I said that one vowel was off in terms of quality and that another didn't need to be there. Unfortunately, neither of the choices you made regarding the vowels were correct. 

For Word 5, it appears that your reconstruction has not changed.

sangi39 wrote: 26 Oct 2020 23:25 IJ [ˈsojm] - [ˈrɛndiso]     - [ˈtoʎaʁin]     - [ˈʔemketa]       - [ˈhijəlm]
Word 1 - Please see my comments below. 
Word 2 - [ˈrɛn-so] is correct.
Word 3 - The first two vowels and [-n] are correct. 
Word 4 - One vowel is off in terms of quality, and the other two are off in terms of quantity. Of the consonants, only [-k-] and [-t-] are correct. Please see below for more information. 
Word 5 - Please see my comments below. 

For Word 1, changing [ˈsoim] to [ˈsojm] was not the answer. I'm not being picky about notation; if the nucleus of this syllable were a diphthong, I'd accept any of [ˈsoɪ̯m], [ˈsoi̯m], [ˈsojm], [ˈsoim], etc. As I mentioned last time, your reconstruction of this word is missing a syllable. 

For Word 2, it appears that your reconstruction has not changed.

Last time, in response to [ˈɣemkæta] for Word 4, I said that one vowel was off in terms of quality, one was off in terms of length, and the third was off in terms of both. Changing the quality of [æ] to [e] was correct, but the other issues remain.

Last time, in response to [ˈhilam] for Word 5, I said that everything you had was correct, but that you were missing a syllable. Here, you've gotten rid of [a], but like all of the other segments, [a] was correct. You were right to insert a CV syllable, but [-jə-] is incorrect. Also, because of the deletion of [a], [ˈhijəlm] is the same number of syllables as [ˈhilam], so there's still one missing. To clarify, my version of Word 5 is [ˈhiCVlam].

sangi39 wrote: 26 Oct 2020 23:25 KL [ˈsoum]  - [rˈnindɐ]      - [ˈtæːrin]      - [dʒeŋˈgyːto]    - [ˈħeɪlin]
Word 1 - All of the segments you have are correct, but there's a syllable missing.
Word 2 - [r-in-] is correct. The other instance of [-n-] is still just partially correct. 
Word 3 - [t-æːrin] is correct, but there's a syllable missing.
Word 4 - Everything is correct except for the final vowel, which is still off in terms of length. 
Word 5 - [-eɪ̯lin] is correct. There's also a syllable missing. 

For Word 2, it appears that your reconstruction has not changed.

sangi39 wrote: 26 Oct 2020 23:25 MN [ˈzoːʒu] - [ɳɛːˈniːzo]    - [ˈtyːɲaːɻu]    - [ˈʒeːgutʃoː]    - [ˈjeʎeimu]
Word 1 - The nucleus of the stressed syllable is off. 
Word 2 - [ɳɛːˈn-zo] is correct. 
Word 3 - [t-ɻu] is correct. The placement of stress is also off. 
Word 4 - [ʒ-gu-] is correct. The placement of stress is also off.
Word 5 - [j-eɪ̯mu] is correct. The placement of stress is also off. 

For Words 1, 3, and 4, it appears that your reconstructions have not changed.

sangi39 wrote: 26 Oct 2020 23:25 OP [ˈzoːʒe] - [ˈʒaːlɯːzo]    - [tuˈwɔje]      - [ʒeˈguttʃaf]    - [ˈjaːma]
Word 1 - Only the consonants are correct. 
Word 2 - Please see my comments below.
Word 3 - The stressed vowel is off. [w] is partially correct. [tu-je] is correct.
Word 4 - The pretonic vowel is off. The geminate is slightly off. [ʒ-ˈgu-af] is correct.
Word 5 - The consonants are correct.

For Words 1, 3, 4, and 5, it appears that your reconstructions have not changed. 

Last time, in response to [ˈjaːlɯːzo] for Word 2, I said that one vowel was off in terms of quality. Here, you have changed one of the consonants. To clarify, [jVːlɯːzo] is correct. The placement of stress is also off in your reconstruction. 

sangi39 wrote: 26 Oct 2020 23:25 QR [ˈzɔɪʒ]  - [ɣɛɪˈjeɪza]    - [taˈʁɔɪʁ]      - [ʒeˈgutta]      - [ɣəˈɣemə]
Word 1 - Spot-on!
Word 2 - [-ˈjeɪ̯z-] is correct.
Word 3 - [t-ɔɪ̯ʁ] is correct.
Word 4 - The pretonic vowel is off in terms of quality, and the geminate is slightly off. 
Word 5 - [ɣəˈɣe-m] is correct. 

For Words 2 and 4, it appears that your reconstructions have not changed.


sangi39 wrote: 26 Oct 2020 23:25 CF [ˈhoim]  - [rənˈdzimpso]  - [toħˈlandɨ]    - [jemˈkutsɔ]     - [iˈdʒelem]
C-F is not a valid grouping. 

sangi39 wrote: 26 Oct 2020 23:25 GJ [ˈsojm]  - [r̩nˈdzisso]    - [ˈtoɬarin]     - [ˈʔemketa]      - [ˈhigilm]
G-J is not a valid grouping.

sangi39 wrote: 26 Oct 2020 23:25 MP [ˈzoːʒo] - [ˈɻandiːzo]    - [tuˈlɔːɻe]     - [ʒeˈguttʃof]    - [ˈjeleiːmu]
M-P is not a valid grouping. 


sangi39 wrote: 26 Oct 2020 23:25 AF [ˈħoðim]  - [ranˈdziməspo] - [toˈʎ̝andər]    - [ʔemˈkudzitsaħu] - [iˈdʒeʎ̝əm]
Word 1 - [-o-], [-m], and I guess also [-i-] are all partially correct, I'd say. There's one more syllable than is necessary. 
Word 2 - All of the consonants are correct, but two are in the wrong order. All of the vowels are correct as well, but one is in the wrong place. 
Word 3 - [t-and-] is correct. Please see below for more details.
Word 4 - Please see my response below.
Word 5 - [iˈdʒe-] is correct. Please see below for more details.

For Word 3, I'm just going to tell you that your [-ər] corresponds to a syllabic [-r̩] in my notes.

For Word 4, [-em-] and [-k-] are correct, and I'm going to count [ʔ-] and [-t͡s-] as essentially correct as well. I guess all of the other vowels could be considered at least partially correct in a similar way to the vowels in Word 1. Overall, I'll tell you that you're off regarding the overall structure of the word and the number of syllables it has. I would definitely recommend going back and comparing AB, CD, and EF again. You seem to be assuming that AB is quite conservative, but I'd describe it as by far the most innovative of the three. 

The issue with [-əm] in Word 5 is the same as the issue with [-ər] in Word 3. In my notes, I have [-m̩]. 

sangi39 wrote: 26 Oct 2020 23:25 GL [ˈsojum]  - [r̩nˈdimsto]    - [ˈtoɬarin]     - [ˈjemˈkø:ta]     - [ˈħigilim]
Word 1 - [ˈso-] is correct. There is also an [-m-]. 
Word 2 - There is an [r], but it's not syllabic. [-nˈdi-] is correct, as is the final vowel. There is also an [-s-].
Word 3 - [-ɬ-] is partially correct. [t-ar-n] is correct. The placement of stress is off. 
Word 4 - [je-k-t-] is correct. [-a] is partially correct. Please see below for more information.
Word 5 - [-ig-l-m] is correct. The placement of stress is off. 

For Word 4, you appear to have marked both of the first two syllables as receiving primary stress. One of those two syllables is, in fact, stressed. 

sangi39 wrote: 26 Oct 2020 23:25 MR [ˈzɔɪʒo]  - [randiːzo]     - [toˈɫɔ:re]     - [ʒeˈguttʃof]     - [ħəˈɣeimu]
Word 1 - The consonants are correct. Please see below for more details.
Word 2 - [r-zo] is correct. It appears that the placement of stress has not been indicated, although you got it right last time. Please see below for more details.
Word 3 -  [t-ɫ-r-] is correct. There is a missing consonant. Please see below for more details. 
Word 4 - [ʒ-ˈgu-] is correct. Please see below for more details.
Word 5 - [-ɣe-m-] is correct. 

Last time, in response to [ˈzoːʒe] for Word 1, I said that the stressed vowel was missing "something". I want to clarify what I meant by that. [-oː-] was technically correct, but it's off in a way that's not related to quality or length. It's a monophthong, but there's a feature missing. 

Last time, in response to [ʀeːˈniːzo] for Word 2, I said that the stressed vowel was missing "something". [-iː-] is off in the same way as the [-oː-] in Word 1. 

Last time, in response to [ˈtoːɫaːrex] for Word 3, I said that "something" was missing from one of the vowels. [-aː-] was technically correct in terms of quality and length, but it was off in the same way as [-oː-] in Word 1 and [-iː-] in Word 2. 

Last time, in response to [ˈʒeːguttav] for Word 4, I said that the first vowel was missing "something". [-eː-] was correct in terms of quality and length, but it was off in the same way as as [-oː-] in Word 1, [-iː-] in Word 2, and [-aː-] in Word 3. Also, I said that the other two vowels were correct and that all of the consonants, apart from the geminate, were correct as well. However, [-av] was changed to [-of] here. [-av] was correct. Also, I will tell you that what you are reconstructing as a geminate here is actually a consonant cluster. 


sangi39 wrote: 26 Oct 2020 23:25 GR [ˈsoʒum]  - [ranˈdimsto]   - [ˈtoɬarin]     - [ˈjemˈkøttax]     - [ˈħegi:ləm]
G-R is not a valid grouping.


sangi39 wrote: 26 Oct 2020 23:25 AR [ˈsoʒum]  - [ranˈdiməspo]  - [ˈtoʎ̝andən]    - [ˈjemˈkodzitsaxu] - [ˈħegi:ʎ̝əm]
Word 1 - Three correct segments
Word 2 - Eight correct segments
Word 3 - Three correct segments 
Word 4 - Five correct segments
Word 5 - Two correct segments 

The placement of stress is definitely off for two of these words, and for Word 4, only one of those two syllables is stressed. 

For Word 3, you were probably closer in terms of structure last time. Speaking of overall structure, you are rather off in that regard for Word 4.

For two of these words, you either already have all of the correct segments or are only missing one, but you also have a number of segments that don't need to be there at all. 
ɶʙ ɞʛ
sinic
sinic
Posts: 287
Joined: 02 Aug 2019 18:47

Re: Quick Diachronics Challenge

Post by ɶʙ ɞʛ »

A [ˈgoðɛ̃ː] - [əːɖɔ̃ːˈðĩə̯̃spo] - [tʼaˈk͡xɔ̃ːɖəː] - [bɛ̃ˈkʼuðiθagu] - [iˈðek͡xə̃ː]

B [ˈvoziɲ] - [ɳɳaˈziməff] - [paˈɣaɳɳəɻ] - [mexˈxuzit͡ɕav] - [ˈzeɣəm]

AB [wod͡zim] – [əɳɖand͡ziməspo] – [twaxaɳɖəɻ] – [mekud͡zit͡sawu] – [id͡zexəm]

AB > A:
w > g {V,#}_{V,#}, w > 0
iN aN əN > ɛ̃ ɔ̃ ə̃, deletion of such nasals
VNV > ṼṼ
#NV > #GṼ
d͡z t͡s > ð θ
Deletion of coda ɻ
x > k͡x
Q > Q’

AB > B:
w > v {V,#}_{V,#}
Qw > p
NG > NN
d͡z t͡s > z t͡ɕ
Q > XX V_V
sp > f:
iN# > iɲ#

Q = voiceless stop
G = voiced stop
X = voiceless fricative

C [ˈħem] - [rɨnˈd͡zimpʰo] - [toħˈland͡ʒɨ] - [jemˈpʼiːt͡sɔ] - [ˈd͡ʒlemɨ]

D [ˈħyə̯m] - [ɹn̩ˈd͡zɪɱfa] - [taħˈɫand͡z] - [ʔɛmˈpəʏ̯so] - [ʔɪˈzɛɫm]

CD [ħø:m] – [rɨnd͡zimpʰo] – [toħland͡ʒɨ] – [emp’y:tsau] – [id͡ʒelmɨ]

CD > C:
Rounded front vowels unround
au > ɔ
CVlC > ClVC
Deletion of initial vowels
#e #o > #je #wo

CD > D:

i: y: u: > əi əy əu
e: ø: o: > iə yə uə
ɨ > 0, coda consonants become syllabic
o > a, au > o
i y u e ø o > ɪ ʏ ʊ ɛ œ ɔ

E [ˈʔun] - [ɹaˈzaɪ̯fs] - [tʊˈɫað] - [ʔɛfˈkaʊ̯sa] - [ˈzɛɫ]

F [ˈwoŋ] - [jerˈd͡ziffe] - [tuˈloːde] - [jeˈk͡puːt͡sa] - [jeˈd͡zeːle]

EF [ʍo:n] – [irad͡zi:fsə] – [tula:də] – [çepku:t͡sa] – [ed͡zelə]

EF > E:
ʍ ç > h > ʔ
QQ > XQ, VQV > VXV
i: u: e: o: > ai au i: u:
Deletion of initial vowels
b d d͡z g > v ð z ɣ
ə > 0

EF > F:
ʍ ç > w j
#i #e > #je
Sporadic vowel deletion
pk > k͡p
ə > e
n# > ŋ#
Adjacent fricatives assimilate
a: > o:


Proto-AF: [ˈʍozim] – [irand͡zimpso] – [tuħlander] – [çempˈku:zit͡sau] – [id͡zehlem]

G [ˈhuːŋ] - [retˈt͡sisse] - [sexˈxɔːreŋ] - [jekˈkyːtɔ] - [jeˈgiːleŋ]

H [ˈhom] - [r̩ˈd͡zɪs] - [ˈsxarn] - [ɪˈcuːðɐ] - [ˈʝeʊ̯m]

GH [ho:m] – [rəd͡z:is:ə] – [səx:a:rn] – [ək:u:ta] – [əge:ləm]

I [ˈsum] - [ˈrɛnʒes] - [ˈsoʎən] - [ˈwɪŋketæ] - [ˈsiʎəm]

J [ˈsõɪ̯̃] - [ˈrjɛ̃dĩzo] - [ˈtolɔ̃ɐ̯̃] - [ˈŋõʊ̯̃pæda] - [ˈŋiə̯ɮã]

IJ [soim] – [rjeninso] – [t͡sol:an] – [he:mketa] – [hil:am]

K [ˈsũvɛ] - [rɐ̃ˈnĩdɐ] - [tʊˈʃẽɪ̯̃] - [dɛ̃ˈŋœʏ̯dɐ] - [ħɪˈʕĩː]

L [ˈsoʊ̯n] - [r̩ˈɲinz] - [ˈt͡ʃæːrin] - [ʒeŋˈgiːto] - [ˈkʰeɪ̯lin]

KL [ˈsome] – [raˈnind͡zo] – [tuˈt͡ʃa:rin] – [zeŋˈgoito] – [xegeilin]

Proto-GL [so:mi] – [randinso] – [t͡soklorin] – [semkoito] - [xegeljam]
* k > x > h word initially to IJ
*x > ħ in K

M [ˈzwaʒu] - [ɳɛˈnaɪ̯ʒo] - [twiˈɲɛɻu] - [ʒjaˈguʃaʊ̯] - [jiˈwemʲu]

N [ˈzuːʒo] - [ˈnaːneːzo] - [ˈtyːnaːʒo] - [ˈʒiːguʒʒoː] - [ˈjeʒʒeːmo]

MN [zwaʒu] – [ɳenaizo] – [twinaɻo] – [ʒjaguʒʒau] – [jeʒweimo]

O [ˈzʌːʒe] - [ˈd͡ʒʌːlɯːzo] - [ˈtubbʌːje] - [ˈʒʌːgudd͡ʒaf] - [ˈd͡ʒoːme]

P [ˈzaʒa] - [jɛˈlɯzo] - [tuˈwɔje] - [ʒaˈgut͡ʃa] - [ˈjeːma]

OP [zɔ:ʒa] – [jɛ:lɯ:zo] – [tub:ɔ:je] – [ʒɛ:gudd͡ʒaf] – [jeuma]

Q [ˈrɔɪ̯z] - [ɦɔˈjeɪ̯ra] - [taxˈxɔɐ̯] - [zɛˈgʏtta] - [gaˈɣeɐ̯m]

R [ˈzwɛʃ] - [ɣəjˈjez] - [ˈtxwɛx] - [ʒəˈguddə] - [ˈɣɣem̥x]

QR – [zɔjs] – [ɣɔje:zə] – [təxɔx] – [ʒəɣuttə] – [ɣəɣem̥]

Proto-MR [zoiso] – [rnã:laizo] – [təwnorə] – [ʒeguttjav] – [gajwem]

To QR: r > ʁ > ɣ, final devoicing


Proto-AF: [ˈʍozim] – [irand͡zimpso] – [tuħlander] – [çempˈku:zit͡sau] – [id͡zehlem]
Proto-GL [so:mi] – [randinso] – [t͡soklorin] – [semkoito] - [xegeljam]
Proto-MR [zoiso] – [rnã:laizo] – [təwnorə] – [ʒeguttjav] – [gajwem]

Proto-AR: [ˈswozim] – [rnanˈdimso] - [toxˈlandir] – [semˈkuzitau] – [geˈxelem]

AR > AF: sw > *random whistle sound* > xw > ʍ
Sj > ʃ > ç
D g > d͡z next to front vowels
#rn > #ir
X > h next to front vowels, ħ next to back vowels
Post Reply