Indo-European diachronic collablang

[qwed117]

I propose the Diachronic Changes (ones that aren't already mentioned):
{p b t d k g}r->{r r r r k g}
I base this off of Index Diachronica 279 where r//C_ ("r" is deleted after a consonant)

[Yrusia]

101) B
102) A
103) BCFGH

[qwed117]

Remember to vote, people!

Results for Questions #96-100:

Spoiler:

96. Based on a write-in for question #28, should the clusters /ḱl ǵl ḱr ǵr/ become /kw gw kw gw/?

a). Yes. 3
b). No. 5

These changes will not occur. Write-ins for this round will be voted on later.

97. Should we keep third person pronouns indistinct from demonstrative pronouns, or should we derive unique third person pronouns?

a). We should keep third person pronouns indistinct from demonstrative pronouns. 6
b). We should derive third person pronouns from demonstrative pronouns somehow. 4
c). We should derive third person pronouns from some other source somehow. 4

Third person pronouns will remain indistinct from demonstrative pronouns.

98. We decided that we'd be keeping half or less of PIE's cases, but exactly how many should we retain?

a). Four cases. 5
b). Three cases. 5
c). Two cases. 2
d). One case.

Three or four cases will be kept. A revote will be held as a tiebreaker.

99. Out of PIE's four moods, how many should we retain?

a). One mood. 1
b). Two moods. 4
c). Three moods. 6
d). Four moods. 1
e). Five moods (a fifth mood is sometimes reconstructed, based mostly on evidence from Vedic Sanskrit, but partially also from Homeric Greek). 3

Three moods will be kept.

100. Out of PIE's three aspects, how many should we retain?

a). One aspect. 1
b). Two aspects. 4
c). Three aspects. 8

Three aspects will be kept.

I'm still working on organizing the list of sound changes. The exact mood "inventory" of our descendant of PIE will not be voted on this round, but it will be voted on soon.

---

New questions:

101. Based on write-ins for question #96, the clusters /ḱl ǵl ḱr ǵr/ should:

a). Become /kj gj kj gj/.
b). Become /ʎ ʎ ʃ ʒ/.
c). Become /ky gy ḱr ǵr/.
d). Stay as they are.
e). Change in a way not explicitly stated here.

102. Since question #98 resulted in a tie, should we keep 3 or 4 of PIE's cases?

a). Three cases.
b). Four cases.

103. In the imperfective aspect, PIE made an additional distinction between past and present. Should we retain this distinction?

a). No, all tense distinctions should be lost.
b). Yes, but we should leave it as it is in PIE.
c). Yes, but we should also spread the tense distinction to the perfective aspect.
d). Yes, but we should also spread the tense distinction to the stative aspect.
e). Yes, but we should also spread the tense distinction to both of the other aspects.
f). Yes, but the distinction should be shifted to the perfective aspect and lost in the imperfective.
g). Yes, but the distinction should be shifted to the stative aspect and lost in the imperfective.
h). Yes, but the distinction should be shifted to both of the other aspects and lost in the imperfective.

---

Again, approval voting, and please let me know if you think I've made any mistakes.

Suggestions for future questions and "submissions" of PIE resources are still very much welcome.

And actually, now we're past 100 questions, since, for whatever reason, there's no #27.

[kanejam]

101. ad
102. ab
103. ab

[zyma]

Sorry I haven't gotten the chance to tally up the most recent round of votes yet. That will be done soon, but school has started up again for me.

[zyma]

Sorry again for the wait; I'm still readjusting to school. I hope to have the current round of voting wrapped up sometime this evening.

[zyma]

The updated/current post for this round of voting can be found here.

---

Spoiler:

Results for Questions #101-103:

Spoiler:

101. Based on write-ins for question #96, the clusters /ḱl ǵl ḱr ǵr/ should:

a). Become /kj gj kj gj/. 4
b). Become /ʎ ʎ ʃ ʒ/. 5
c). Become /ky gy ḱr ǵr/.
d). Stay as they are. 1
e). Change in a way not explicitly stated here. 2 Write in: /ʎ̥ ʎ ç ʝ/

The change /ḱl ǵl ḱr ǵr/ > /ʎ ʎ ʃ ʒ/ occurs.

102. Since question #98 resulted in a tie, should we keep 3 or 4 of PIE's cases?

a). Three cases. 5
b). Four cases. 4

Three cases will be kept.

103. In the imperfective aspect, PIE made an additional distinction between past and present. Should we retain this distinction?

a). No, all tense distinctions should be lost. 3
b). Yes, but we should leave it as it is in PIE. 4
c). Yes, but we should also spread the tense distinction to the perfective aspect. 4
d). Yes, but we should also spread the tense distinction to the stative aspect. 2
e). Yes, but we should also spread the tense distinction to both of the other aspects. 3
f). Yes, but the distinction should be shifted to the perfective aspect and lost in the imperfective. 2
g). Yes, but the distinction should be shifted to the stative aspect and lost in the imperfective. 2
h). Yes, but the distinction should be shifted to both of the other aspects and lost in the imperfective. 1

A tiebreaker is necessary.

Spoiler:

We'll be voting on which moods and cases to keep below, among other things. When an option says something like "we should get rid of the indicative and reassign its usages to the subjunctive", that doesn't mean we won't have an indicative mood; instead, it means that PIE's subjunctive verb endings will be used in situations where PIE would have used both the indicative and subjunctive endings. In other words, the indicative and subjunctive are merging into one mood using what were originally the subjunctive's endings. Hopefully that makes sense.

Because of the large amount of questions being voted upon at once, it may take more than one round to settle ties and clear up contradictions and such.

I'd strongly suggest looking up reconstructed verb and noun inflection charts for PIE to see which set of endings you prefer if you want to conflate two moods/cases. If you'd like to mix two sets of mood or case endings, please vote for conflating one of the two with the other, but please specify that you'd actually like to mix them. That way I'll know if we have something more to vote on later.

---

Spoiler:

New questions:

104. As a tiebreaker for question #103, what should we do about the tense distinction found in PIE's imperfective aspect?

a). We should retain it, but leave it as it is in PIE.
b). We should retain it, and spread it to the perfective aspect as well.

105. We're keeping three of PIE's moods. What should we do with PIE's imperative?

a). Keep it as it is.
b). Get rid of it and reassign its usages to the indicative.
c). Get rid of it and reassign its usages to the optative.
d). Get rid of it and reassign its usages to the subjunctive.

106. We're keeping three of PIE's moods. What should we do with PIE's optative?

a). Keep it as it is.
b). Get rid of it and reassign its usages to the indicative.
c). Get rid of it and reassign its usages to the imperative.
d). Get rid of it and reassign its usages to the subjunctive.

107. We're keeping three of PIE's moods. What should we do with PIE's subjunctive?

a). Keep it as it is.
b). Get rid of it and reassign its usages to the indicative.
c). Get rid of it and reassign its usages to the imperative.
d). Get rid of it and reassign its usages to the optative.

108. We're keeping three of PIE's moods. What should we do with PIE's indicative?

a). Keep it as it is.
b). Get rid of it and reassign its usages to the imperative.
c). Get rid of it and reassign its usages to the optative.
d). Get rid of it and reassign its usages to the subjunctive.

109. We're keeping three of PIE's cases. What should we do with PIE's vocative?

a). Keep it as it is.
b). Get rid of it and reassign its usages to the nominative.
c). Get rid of it and reassign its usages to the accusative.
d). Get rid of it and reassign its usages to the instrumental.
e). Get rid of it and reassign its usages to the dative.
f). Get rid of it and reassign its usages to the ablative.
g). Get rid of it and reassign its usages to the genitive.
h). Get rid of it and reassign its usages to the locative.

110. We're keeping three of PIE's cases. What should we do with PIE's accusative?

a). Keep it as it is.
b). Get rid of it and reassign its usages to the nominative.
c). Get rid of it and reassign its usages to the vocative.
d). Get rid of it and reassign its usages to the instrumental.
e). Get rid of it and reassign its usages to the dative.
f). Get rid of it and reassign its usages to the ablative.
g). Get rid of it and reassign its usages to the genitive.
h). Get rid of it and reassign its usages to the locative.

111. We're keeping three of PIE's cases. What should we do with PIE's instrumental?

a). Keep it as it is.
b). Get rid of it and reassign its usages to the nominative.
c). Get rid of it and reassign its usages to the vocative.
d). Get rid of it and reassign its usages to the accusative.
e). Get rid of it and reassign its usages to the dative.
f). Get rid of it and reassign its usages to the ablative.
g). Get rid of it and reassign its usages to the genitive.
h). Get rid of it and reassign its usages to the locative.

112. We're keeping three of PIE's cases. What should we do with PIE's dative?

a). Keep it as it is.
b). Get rid of it and reassign its usages to the nominative.
c). Get rid of it and reassign its usages to the vocative.
d). Get rid of it and reassign its usages to the accusative.
e). Get rid of it and reassign its usages to the instrumental.
f). Get rid of it and reassign its usages to the ablative.
g). Get rid of it and reassign its usages to the genitive.
h). Get rid of it and reassign its usages to the locative.

113. We're keeping three of PIE's cases. What should we do with PIE's ablative?

a). Keep it as it is.
b). Get rid of it and reassign its usages to the nominative.
c). Get rid of it and reassign its usages to the vocative.
d). Get rid of it and reassign its usages to the accusative.
e). Get rid of it and reassign its usages to the instrumental.
f). Get rid of it and reassign its usages to the dative.
g). Get rid of it and reassign its usages to the genitive.
h). Get rid of it and reassign its usages to the locative.

114. We're keeping three of PIE's cases. What should we do with PIE's genitive?

a). Keep it as it is.
b). Get rid of it and reassign its usages to the nominative.
c). Get rid of it and reassign its usages to the vocative.
d). Get rid of it and reassign its usages to the accusative.
e). Get rid of it and reassign its usages to the instrumental.
f). Get rid of it and reassign its usages to the dative.
g). Get rid of it and reassign its usages to the ablative.
h). Get rid of it and reassign its usages to the locative.

115. We're keeping three of PIE's cases. What should we do with PIE's locative?

a). Keep it as it is.
b). Get rid of it and reassign its usages to the nominative.
c). Get rid of it and reassign its usages to the vocative.
d). Get rid of it and reassign its usages to the accusative.
e). Get rid of it and reassign its usages to the instrumental.
f). Get rid of it and reassign its usages to the dative.
g). Get rid of it and reassign its usages to the ablative.
h). Get rid of it and reassign its usages to the genitive.

116. We're keeping three of PIE's cases. What should we do with PIE's nominative?

a). Keep it as it is.
b). Get rid of it and reassign its usages to the vocative.
c). Get rid of it and reassign its usages to the accusative.
d). Get rid of it and reassign its usages to the instrumental.
e). Get rid of it and reassign its usages to the dative.
f). Get rid of it and reassign its usages to the ablative.
g). Get rid of it and reassign its usages to the genitive.
h). Get rid of it and reassign its usages to the locative.

---

Spoiler:

I think that's more than enough for now. As usual, we're using approval voting, and please let me know if I've made any mistakes.

Please feel free to suggest ideas for future questions, but please keep in mind that no further phonological/phonetic questions are being accepted at this time.

[zyma]

Spoiler:

104: b
105: c
106: a
107: a / b
108: a / d
109: c
110: a
111: a
112: e
113: d
114: e
115: d
116: a

[zyma]

I propose the Diachronic Changes (ones that aren't already mentioned):
{p b t d k g}r->{r r r r k g}
I base this off of Index Diachronica 279 where r//C_ ("r" is deleted after a consonant)

So, to be clear, you're proposing that we have labial and coronal stops disappear before /r/, but /r/ disappear after velar stops?

[druneragarsh]

104. B
105. A
106. A
107. C
108. A
109. C
110. A
111. G
112. B
113. C
114. A
115. H
116. A

[Adarain]

104. b

As for the others, I find it quite difficult to put anything down. I don't think we'll get anything from these either - there are too many possible outcomes and not enough voters. In my eyes, it'd make more sense to do what I suggested earlier on - one by one vote on which case to loose, then what to merge it with. With going from eight (nine? isn't allative a thing too?) cases to three, that'd take like 5 rounds of voting? And I think the results would be better by far. We'd know the order of how they merge that way, too. Just to be clear on how I mean:

---

Round one:
105. Which case should we lose first?
a) Nominative
b) Accusative
c) Dative
d) Genitive
e) Ablative
f) Instrumental
g) Locative
h) Vocative

---

Round 2:
106. Since last round, we decided the vocative should be lost first, which case should it merge with?
a) Nominative
b) Accusative
c) Dative
d) Genitive
e) Ablative
f) Instrumental
g) Locative

107. Which is the next case we should lose?
a) Nominative
b) Accusative
c) Dative
d) Genitive
e) Ablative
f) Instrumental
g) Locative

etc until we're down to three.

[loglorn]

104. b

As for the others, I find it quite difficult to put anything down. I don't think we'll get anything from these either - there are too many possible outcomes and not enough voters. In my eyes, it'd make more sense to do what I suggested earlier on - one by one vote on which case to loose, then what to merge it with. With going from eight (nine? isn't allative a thing too?) cases to three, that'd take like 5 rounds of voting? And I think the results would be better by far. We'd know the order of how they merge that way, too. Just to be clear on how I mean:

---

Round one:
105. Which case should we lose first?
a) Nominative
b) Accusative
c) Dative
d) Genitive
e) Ablative
f) Instrumental
g) Locative
h) Vocative

---

Round 2:
106. Since last round, we decided the vocative should be lost first, which case should it merge with?
a) Nominative
b) Accusative
c) Dative
d) Genitive
e) Ablative
f) Instrumental
g) Locative

107. Which is the next case we should lose?
a) Nominative
b) Accusative
c) Dative
d) Genitive
e) Ablative
f) Instrumental
g) Locative

etc until we're down to three.

I approve. It seems a more sensible way to do it, and the same could be done with the moods.

[zyma]

As for the others, I find it quite difficult to put anything down. I don't think we'll get anything from these either - there are too many possible outcomes and not enough voters. In my eyes, it'd make more sense to do what I suggested earlier on - one by one vote on which case to loose, then what to merge it with. With going from eight (nine? isn't allative a thing too?) cases to three, that'd take like 5 rounds of voting? And I think the results would be better by far. We'd know the order of how they merge that way, too. Just to be clear on how I mean:

From my point of view, the setup of the most recent list of votes was what your earlier suggestion described.

And yes, some people do reconstruct PIE with nine cases, but it doesn't seem to be widely accepted from what I've seen/read (although I could be wrong), and so far I've been unable to find any actual reconstructions of what the endings for the hypothesized ninth case might have looked like.

I approve. It seems a more sensible way to do it, and the same could be done with the moods.

I don't see much of a difference, personally, between doing it all in one round and splitting it up between multiple rounds.

In any case, I was working under the assumption that people still felt we were moving at a distressingly slow pace, an opinion expressed just a month or two ago.

[qwed117]

I propose the Diachronic Changes (ones that aren't already mentioned):
{p b t d k g}r->{r r r r k g}
I base this off of Index Diachronica 279 where r//C_ ("r" is deleted after a consonant)

So, to be clear, you're proposing that we have labial and coronal stops disappear before /r/, but /r/ disappear after velar stops?

Yes.
104)B
105)A E=Develop new "conjugations" for Imperatives
106)A D
107)A D
108)A
109)B D G N= Develop NOM-2(SG/PL)-GEN
110)A B C D
111)A B D E H
112)D E G H
113)F H
114)A F H
115)A F H
116)A

---

In the order of my most heavily "weighted" votes(so that it still makes sense)
105 (E) (New formation)
106 (D) (Merges with Subjunctive)
107 (A) (Stays as a Subjunctive)
108 (A) (Stays as Indicative)
So we have
IND, IMP, and SUB

---

In the order of my most heavily "weighted" votes (so that it still makes sense with the 3 restriction)
109 (N= Develop NOM-2(SG/PL)-thing.GEN, which suffers sound changes) [I'm not counting this one, because we aren't "keeping" a case]
110 (B) (Nominative)
111 (H) (Locative)
112 (G) (Genitive)
113 (H) (Locative)
114 (A) (Genitive)
115 (A) (Locative)
116 (A) (Nominative)
So we have
GEN, LOC, NOM

[loglorn]

I approve. It seems a more sensible way to do it, and the same could be done with the moods.

I don't see much of a difference, personally, between doing it all in one round and splitting it up between multiple rounds.

In any case, I was working under the assumption that people still felt we were moving at a distressingly slow pace, an opinion expressed just a month or two ago.

It seems clearer and less prone to contradiction, in my opinion.

[zyma]

So I guess we're redoing the current round? My apologies if you've already voted, as you'll have to vote again. Something hopefully satisfactory will be up as soon as possible.

[zyma]

Results for Questions #101-103:

Spoiler:

101. Based on write-ins for question #96, the clusters /ḱl ǵl ḱr ǵr/ should:

a). Become /kj gj kj gj/. 4
b). Become /ʎ ʎ ʃ ʒ/. 5
c). Become /ky gy ḱr ǵr/.
d). Stay as they are. 1
e). Change in a way not explicitly stated here. 2 Write in: /ʎ̥ ʎ ç ʝ/

The change /ḱl ǵl ḱr ǵr/ > /ʎ ʎ ʃ ʒ/ occurs.

102. Since question #98 resulted in a tie, should we keep 3 or 4 of PIE's cases?

a). Three cases. 5
b). Four cases. 4

Three cases will be kept.

103. In the imperfective aspect, PIE made an additional distinction between past and present. Should we retain this distinction?

a). No, all tense distinctions should be lost. 3
b). Yes, but we should leave it as it is in PIE. 4
c). Yes, but we should also spread the tense distinction to the perfective aspect. 4
d). Yes, but we should also spread the tense distinction to the stative aspect. 2
e). Yes, but we should also spread the tense distinction to both of the other aspects. 3
f). Yes, but the distinction should be shifted to the perfective aspect and lost in the imperfective. 2
g). Yes, but the distinction should be shifted to the stative aspect and lost in the imperfective. 2
h). Yes, but the distinction should be shifted to both of the other aspects and lost in the imperfective. 1

A tiebreaker is necessary.

We'll be voting on which moods and cases to keep in the coming weeks, among other things. When an option says something like "get rid of the nominative", that doesn't mean we won't have any way to express the agent of a transitive verb or the experiencer of an intransitive verb; instead, it means that PIE's nominative case endings will no longer be used, and another case/another set of endings will take on the usages of the nominative case in addition to its own former usages. Hopefully that makes sense.

I'd strongly suggest looking up reconstructed verb and noun inflection charts for PIE to see which sets of endings you prefer. When the time comes for us to decide which cases and moods to merge, we will have to decide whether to use the first case or mood's endings, the second case or mood's endings, or a combination of the two sets. Hopefully that makes sense as well.

---

New questions:

104. As a tiebreaker for question #103, what should we do about the tense distinction found in PIE's imperfective aspect?

a). We should retain it, but leave it as it is in PIE.
b). We should retain it, and spread it to the perfective aspect as well.

105. Should the changes /pr br tr dr kr gr/ > /r r r r k g/ be applied?

a). Yes.
b). No.
c). Other (please explain).

106. We'll be retaining three of PIE's cases. Which of the following should be lost first?

a). Nominative.
b). Vocative.
c). Accusative.
d). Instrumental.
e). Dative.
f). Ablative.
g). Genitive.
h). Locative.

107. We'll be retaining three of PIE's moods. Which of the following should be lost first?

a). Indicative.
b). Imperative.
c). Optative.
d). Subjunctive.

---

As usual, we're using approval voting, and please let me know if I've made any mistakes.

Please feel free to suggest ideas for future questions, but please keep in mind that no further phonological/phonetic questions are being accepted at this time.

[zyma]

104: b
105: a / b
106: b
107: b

[Daedolon]

104) b
105) b
106) b
107) c

[loglorn]

104. B
105. A
106. B F
107. B D