sangi39 wrote: ↑19 Apr 2020 15:56
A [ˈfutʃʏti] - [ˈʒetʃu] - [pəˈvapan] - [xʏˈven]
B [ˈɸɔxxuteː] - [ˈjaxxoː] - [pawˈwaɸɸa] - [ʃuwˈwaː]
So, I think there are two main things going on here:
1) Geminate fricatives "fortify" in A, and then consonant length is lost entirely
2) The post-alveolar consonants become velar
There's also has to be two different ways B gets [ɸ], since it corresponds to either [p] or [f] in B.
In B, yes.
It might be helpful to think about the fact that, in Word 3, it's geminate [ɸɸ].
sangi39 wrote: ↑19 Apr 2020 15:56
The confusion for Word 4 definitely lies in the initials. Original post-alveolar fricatives become [x] in B and remain unchanged in A, but here they're the other way around, suggesting that's not what's going on.
The onset of the first syllable of Word 4 in AB was neither simply *x or *ʃ.
sangi39 wrote: ↑19 Apr 2020 15:56
If the nearby CD is anything to go by, it could suggest something like *[xʷ] or even *[xʲ], so I'm honestly unsure.
Although there was a velar fricative involved.
sangi39 wrote: ↑19 Apr 2020 15:56
The [v]~[ww] correspondences made me think the the [ww] was original, but if that's incorrect, and it's a late instance of fortition, it could be something like in Arabic where stressed long vowels get sort of "broken" with a medial glide?
Neither was present in AB, but of the two, [ww] is probably closer.
However, fortition did occur, and stress was involved, but I'd say the vowel is largely irrelevant.
sangi39 wrote: ↑19 Apr 2020 15:56
AB [ˈɸɔʃʃuteː] - [ˈjaʃʃo:] - [ˈpa:ppan] - [xʲa:n]~[xʷa:n]
Word 1 - Only one segment is partially off, and it's only off in terms of length.
Word 2 - Only one segment is partially off, and it's only off in terms of length.
Word 3 - This is further off than your previous reconstruction. [-pan] is still correct, though. The first two segments are technically correct as well.
Word 4 - This is further off than your previous reconstruction. [-aːn] is correct, though.
sangi39 wrote: ↑19 Apr 2020 15:56
C [ɸɔːʃuˈdeɪ] - [ɲaːˈʃoʊ] - [ˈɸæːwaːβaː] - [ˈfaː]
D [ɔʃˈteː] - [ɲaˈʃoː] - [ˈaːsaŋ] - [ˈaŋ]
Again, I think there's two main things going on here:
1) The loss of an initial [ɸ] in D
At least initially.
Also, I've just noticed a very silly mistake on my part that I should have caught earlier. Word 4 in C should be [ˈɸaː]. I'll update the original post.
sangi39 wrote: ↑19 Apr 2020 15:56
2) A lot of fun with the vowels relating to stress in D (the correspondences seem to suggest a) long unstressed vowels become short, b) short unstessed vowels drop out, and c) long stressed vowels diphthongise)
In some positions, yes.
Long stressed mid vowels diphthongize in C.
sangi39 wrote: ↑19 Apr 2020 15:56
I'm not even going to pretend where the [s
] in D came from right now, but if the thing with "fortition" in AB was late, then could it be that it influenced C?
I'm not entirely sure I understand what you're asking, but the [w] in Word 3 in C is related to the [v] and [ww] in Word 3 in A and B, respectively.
As for the [s
] in D… I'm trying to think of a way to point you in the right direction instead of just revealing the answer. It might help to think about [ɸɸ] in Word 3 in B.
sangi39 wrote: ↑19 Apr 2020 15:56
If the rest of Word 1 is "close enough" then could it be that in CD the two labial initials in 1 and 3 were actually still distinct phonemes, but just merged in C and both got long in D?
There were two distinct phonemes in CD, although I've come to realize that they could both be reconstructed as [ɸ] and it would not change a thing. It would probably be better, actually, and I'm sure that's what I would have done if I had been working "backwards" instead of from the protolanguage down. I'll now be counting [ɸ] as entirely correct here.
As a bit of a "bonus", I guess, there was a third phoneme that merged with [ɸ] - before being lost - in D, but not in C.
sangi39 wrote: ↑19 Apr 2020 15:56
CD [ɸɔːʃuˈteː] - [ɲaːˈʃoː] - [ˈɸaːβaŋ] - [ˈxaŋ]
~[ˈfaːβaŋ]
Word 1 - Only two segments are off, both in terms of length.
Word 2 - Only two segments are off, both in terms of length.
Word 3 - This is further off than your previous reconstruction. However, [ˈɸaː-] is correct, and [-aŋ] is essentially correct.
Word 4 - As noted above, Word 4 in C should be [ˈɸaː]. If not for my mistake, you would have gotten the initial consonant. [-aŋ] is essentially correct.
sangi39 wrote: ↑19 Apr 2020 15:56
E [ˈføːʰti] - [ˈnyːʃø] - [ˈfoːwaŋ] - [ˈkʰuːŋ]
F [ˈpyːdʒiː] - [ˈnyːʒyː] - [puːˈwuːbm̩] - [ˈtʃyːm]
Still seeing that pesky "long vowel vs. two syllable" correspondence in 3, but, again, if that is a late change spreading out in the Western Branch, then doesn't seem unreasonable to assume that's what's going on here.
Word 4 seems to suggest some sort of palatalisation (although it's fun that EF *[p] is retained in F, but lenited in E, while it seems to be the other way round when it comes to something like a **[k], but again, that ties back in to the whole "aspiration" thing that's been mentioned in previous posts. Maybe E developed it secondarily, but lenition only affected early-E *[pʰ]
I suppose it's a question of which is original.
I wouldn't call it palatalization.
Aspiration, as in [kʰ], was a later, E-specific development.
sangi39 wrote: ↑19 Apr 2020 15:56
EF [ˈpøːhtiː] - [ˈnyːʃøː] - [ˈpoːban] - [ˈkʲuːŋ]
Word 1 - Only one segment is off.
Word 2 - Spot-on!
Word 3 - This is further off than your previous reconstruction. However, [-an] is correct, and the first two segments are technically correct as well.
Word 4 - [-uːŋ] is essentially correct.
sangi39 wrote: ↑19 Apr 2020 15:56
G [ˈpoːɪði] - [ˈniːjø] - [ˈpwopan] - [ˈtʃuːn]
H [ˈpoːʃt] - [ˈniːʃ] - [ˈpʰoppã] - [ˈksũː]
Word 3 and Word 4 are causing trouble again.
IIRC, there's a sound change in some languages in which an original [j] becomes [s
] (or something close to it, like in Greek), which could explain the initial [ks] in H, and would then be a source of palatalisation in G.
You're on the wrong track thinking in terms of palatalization.
(Even though it's not what's going on here, though, I believe you are correct about, for instance, PIE *y- > [d͡z-] (> [zd]?) > [z-] in Greek. For example, according to Wiktionary, the "zyg-" in "zygote" is cognate with "yoke" (and the "jug-" in "jugular").)
sangi39 wrote: ↑19 Apr 2020 15:56
The distinguishing feature in H is the aspirated initial, although I'm not 100% sure why it's there. I'm assuming that it doesn't correspond at all to the [w] in G (which, looking at it, could come from something like [opp] > [o:p] > [wop]), but I can't tell if it's original, or if the aspiration developed from another source. For the moment, though, I'll consider it original, and see what happens.
The aspiration in H does not directly correspond to [w] in G.
[opp] > [oːp] > [wop] is not correct, although I'll say you're not wrong in assuming that [w] comes from a vowel.
Aspiration is a very recent development, related to contact between H and I.
sangi39 wrote: ↑19 Apr 2020 15:56
GH [ˈpoːɕti] - [ˈniːɕø] - [ˈpʰoppan] - [ˈkjuːn]
~[ˈpʷoppan]
Word 1 - Your previous reconstruction was slightly closer, although only because of the POA of the fricative.
Word 2 - Your previous reconstruction was slightly closer, although only because of the POA of the fricative.
Word 3 - [-oppan] is correct.
Word 4 - Only one segment is off.
sangi39 wrote: ↑19 Apr 2020 15:56
I [ˈkoloɪt] - [ˈdʒeɪl] - [ˈgʱom] - [ˈʃõ]
J [ˈkoʎ̝ɟe] - [ˈdʒeʎʎo] - [kæˈŋoːβe] - [ˈʃuː]
So, again, using [ɬʲ] as just a different way of transcribing a voiceless lateral palatal fricative, it looks like palatalised consonants spit out a preceding [ɪ] (a change that I think happened in French at some point).
If I tried to dance around this issue, I think it would just make things more confusing, so I'll just tell you that, at least for IJ, where you have palatal or palatalized consonants, I have [Cj] clusters in my notes. For simplicity's sake, I'll be treating these as single, palatal or palatalized segments.
But yes, *VCʲ in IJ did result in [Vɪ̯C] in I.
sangi39 wrote: ↑19 Apr 2020 15:56
I'm not sure why it didn't do that in Word 1's first syllable, but did in Word 2 (everything else suggests that the two laterals were likely the same sound in IJ, so could be a restricted sound change. Anyway...).
I'd encourage you to rethink what has happened since the breakup of IJ, so to speak, especially in Word 1 in J.
sangi39 wrote: ↑19 Apr 2020 15:56
The [æˈŋoː] in J's Word 3 is interesting. It looks like a bleed over from the Western "medial fortition" but it's resulted in [ŋ] instead of [w] (if I had to guess, it's because it went through an intermediate [ʔ] instead, suggesting that it was something like *[koːβe] at an earlier stage, then shifted to *[koˈʔoːβe])
All the instances of [w] in the Western languages do not necessarily have a common source.
You are right about the rhinoglottophilia, but the original consonant wasn't [ʔ], and that's not how it got there.
sangi39 wrote: ↑19 Apr 2020 15:56
IJ [ˈkoɬʲotʲe] - [ˈdʒeɬɬʲo] - [ˈkʰo:βẽ] - [ˈʃõ:]
Word 1 - Two of the consonants are off, both in terms of voicing, and one in terms of POA or secondary articulation as well.
Word 2 - You're essentially there, although the voicing of the medial geminate is off.
Word 3 - In some respects, your previous reconstruction was closer. However, [β] is correct.
Word 4 - This is only off in terms of vowel length.
sangi39 wrote: ↑19 Apr 2020 15:56
K [ˈkaʊʃʃutsi] - [ˈɖeʃʃu] - [ˈcʰoɸɸõ] - [ˈʂʈũ]
L [ˈkeʊɬɬti] - [ˈdriɬɬu] - [ˈθuɸɸa] - [ˈtrõ]
If I had to guess, the main feature in this branch is some sort of palatalisation of the initial in Word 3, which seems to be unconditional, with the dental initial arising in a similar manner to Spanish.
Although I'm not sure what you mean by "unconditional".
sangi39 wrote: ↑19 Apr 2020 15:56
For the moment, I'm assuming the aspiration is original.
It was present in KL.
sangi39 wrote: ↑19 Apr 2020 15:56
KL [ˈkaʊɬɬuti] - [ˈdreɬɬu] - [ˈkʲʰuɸɸõ] - [ˈtrũ]
Word 1 - Spot on!
Word 2 - Spot-on!
Word 3 - The qualities of both vowels are off. As for the initial consonant, it's just a matter of you having [Cʲ] where I have [Cj].
Word 4 - The quality of the vowel is off. [tr] is correct, but you're missing something.
sangi39 wrote: ↑19 Apr 2020 15:56
M [ˈkoʊɬɬuʔ] - [ˈniɬɬe] - [ˈkuːfaŋ] - [ˈnuŋ]
N [ˈʔaʊɬuk] - [ˈgeɬe] - [ˈʔaːʰpã] - [ˈrõ]
So this is where we see the fun Hawai'ian-eque shifts in N.
The "not quite" comment while talking about the nasal initials of the Western branch has thrown me, though, in relation to M's Word 3 here. Was it originally a nasal but only managed to hold on in the East in M, or was in *[d] in MN, coming from a nasal initial in the proto-language and then shifting back in M (for the moment I'm going to assume it was *[d] in MN, given the wider presence of voiced plosive initials in the area).
Do you mean M's Word 2, perhaps?
Hmm… I guess I'll say that you're giving yourself too few options here.
sangi39 wrote: ↑19 Apr 2020 15:56
Oh, and the development of pre-aspiration in Word 3 reflecting a sound change in Icelandic was fun to see.
Sorry to disappoint, but if you're referring to [pp] > [ʰp], that's not exactly what happened here.
sangi39 wrote: ↑19 Apr 2020 15:56
MN [ˈkoʊɬɬut] - [ˈdeɬɬe] - [ˈkoːppaŋ] - [ˈron]
Word 1 - The only thing that's off the is the quality of the nucleus of the diphthong.
Word 2 - [-eɬɬe] is correct.
Word 3 - Your previous reconstruction was closer, and honestly, was probably close enough.
Word 4 - Spot on!
sangi39 wrote: ↑19 Apr 2020 15:56
O [ˈkaːtɬ] - [ˈdeɬeː] - [ˈskopãː] - [ˈɬõː]
P [ˈkoxtse] - [ˈdzeʝø] - [ˈkromb] - [ˈhon]
Word 3 here really does absolutely throw me. *[w] > *[r] is thought to have occurred in the history of Middle Chinese, but I legitimately have no idea at all what that [s
] is doing there. There is one sound change I've found, in Ofo, which has *[kx] > [sk] which is really interesting, which could mean that [ˈskopãː] comes from an early [ˈkxopãː] which would be super cool, so literally for the sake of "obscure sound change", I'm going with it.
That would be cool! Unfortunately, I didn't think of [w] > [r] or [kx] > [sk] while deciding on sound changes.
There is a segment in P that corresponds to the [s
] in O.
sangi39 wrote: ↑19 Apr 2020 15:56
OP [ˈkoɬte] - [ˈdeɬew] - [ˈkwopan] - [ˈxlon]
Word 1 - The nucleus of the stressed syllable is off.
Word 2 - Essentially spot on! The only "difference" is that I have [-eʊ̯] where you have [-ew], which doesn't matter.
Word 3 - [-opan] is correct.
Word 4 - [-on] is correct. The initial cluster is not the one I had in mind, but in terms of the reflexes in O and P, it might as well be right.
sangi39 wrote: ↑19 Apr 2020 15:56
OW [ˈɸɔʃʃuteː] - [ˈnjaʃʃoː] - [ˈpa:ppan] - [xʲa:n]
IW [ˈpoːɕtiː] - [ˈniːʃøː] - [ˈpoːppaŋ] - [ˈkjuːn]
sangi39 wrote: ↑19 Apr 2020 15:56
IE [ˈkoːɬɬʲoti] - [ˈdreɬɬʲo] - [ˈkʰoɸɸã] - [ˈtrõ:]
OE [ˈkoːɬɬute] - [ˈdiɬɬoː] - [ˈkoːppan] - [ˈxron]
Proto-OW:
Word 1 - One vowel is off in terms of length. Given what was discussed under CD, I'm treating [ɸ] as correct.
Word 2 - One vowel is off in terms of length.
Word 3 - Your previous reconstruction was closer. [-pan] is entirely correct. Initial [paː-] is technically correct, in terms of segments.
Word 4 - [-aːn] is correct.
Proto-IW:
Word 1 - Your previous reconstruction was closer, because of the POA of the fricative. There was something missing, though.
Word 2 - Spot-on!
Word 3 - Your previous reconstruction was probably closer. [-pa-] is correct. [-ŋ] is close enough. Initial [poː-] is technically correct, segmentally.
Word 4 - All that's off is [-j-].
Proto-IE (not that one):
Word 1 - None of the vowels are entirely correct. The POA of the medial geminate is off.
Word 2 - The POA of the medial geminate and the final vowel are off.
Word 3 - [-oɸɸã] is correct, and [o] is stressed. You're still off in a more general way, though.
Word 4 - The vowel is off in terms of length, and the initial consonant is not [t].
Proto-OE:
Word 1 - Only the stressed vowel is off.
Word 2 - Only [-ɬɬ-] is correct.
Word 3 - This is closer than your previous reconstruction, but still generally off. However, the initial consonant is [k-], and [-pan] is correct.
Word 4 - The only thing that's off is [x-].
sangi39 wrote: ↑19 Apr 2020 15:56
PW [ˈpoʃʃutiː] - [ˈneːʃoː] - [ˈpʷoːppan] - [ˈkjoːn]
PE [ˈkoːɬɬʲoti] - [ˈdre:ɬɬʲo:] - [ˈko:ppan] - [ˈkro:n]
Proto-Western:
Word 1 - Based on my comments last time, I'm not sure why you changed the final vowel. Other than that, the stressed vowel is still off.
Word 2 - Again, based on my comments last time, I'm not sure why you shortened the medial fricative. Otherwise, [-oː] is still off.
Word 3 - In some ways, this is closer than your previous guess, but in other ways, its further off. [-pan] is correct. The initial consonant is [p-].
Word 4 - The only thing that's off is [-j-].
Proto-Eastern:
Word 1 - None of the vowels are entirely correct, although you were closer with the final one last time. The POA of [ɬɬʲ] is off.
Word 2 - Based on my comments, I'm not sure why you changed the first vowel, but left the second one alone. The POA of [ɬɬʲ] is off. As for the rest, you're not wrong, exactly, but you're missing something.
Word 3 - In some ways, this is closer than your previous guess, but in other ways, its further off. [-pan] is correct, and the initial consonant is [k-].
Word 4 - The vowel is off only in terms of length, and the initial consonant was not [k-].
sangi39 wrote: ↑19 Apr 2020 15:56
PR [ˈkʷoːɬɬʲoti] - [ˈdre:ɬɬʲo:] - [ˈkʷo:ppan] - [ˈkro:n]
~[ˈdne:ɬɬʲo:]
In terms of segments:
Word 1 - 2 correct
Word 2 - 2 correct either way
Word 3 - 4 correct
Word 4 - 4 correct!
You're spot-on with the fourth word.
I will tell you that two of the words in the protolanguage were three syllables long, one was two syllables long, and one was monosyllabic.
sangi39 wrote: ↑19 Apr 2020 15:56
*[ɬɬʲ] again, representing a voiceless palatal lateral fricative.
I've definitely gone wrong somewhere in there. Aspiration seems to be a really big player in the Western Branch for Word 1, but it appears as a feature in the Eastern Branch in Word 3, but both initials realistically have to be labialised velars.
I wonder if there's something... almost Germanic going on, yielding the following as the ultimate proto-words:
[ˈkʷoːɬɬʲoti] - [ˈdre:ɬɬʲo:] - [ˈg(ʱ)ʷo:ppan] - [ˈkro:n]
~[ˈdne:ɬɬʲo:]
That could help explain the seemingly sporadic instances of aspiration across the various branches:
1) The Outer Western Branch saw the aspiration of the voiceless plosives, followed by them becoming fricatives.
2) The Western Branch as a whole retained *[gʷʱ] (as *[bʱ]), which then either merged into *[p] (in Outer Western, and EF, and finally G), or became a voiceless aspirate (in H)
3) Inner Eastern saw the the devoicing of *[gʱʷ] (retained as *[gʱ]), while Outher Eastern saw it merge into the voiceless plosives.
Although I do want to commend you for your creativity here, you're unfortunately very far off with this whole line of thinking.
The only accurate statement here, I believe, is that Word 1 and Word 3 both begin with labialized velars (specifically [kʷ-]) in the protolanguage. Any later splits, so to speak, have to do with context.