Quick Diachronics Challenge

A forum for all topics related to constructed languages
User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 2702
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 01:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

Re: Quick Diachronics Challenge

Post by sangi39 »

Ser wrote:
01 Apr 2020 09:43
sangi39 wrote:
31 Mar 2020 21:59
I don't think I'll be able to work on this now until the 11th of April. With everything going on with COVID-19, we've become a lot busier at work than everyone had originally expected so we're having to put in extra shifts to keep up with the work load (when doing my homeworking shifts, I could easily cram that into an hour and be comfortably done, now it's creeping up to three hours while having to intentionally leave stuff for when I'm at the office in the morning).
May I ask what kind of commonly-used service do you work at that you have to work more during the crisis? My father is in the same situation as you, as he works for the liquor distribution services here (which the provincial government has a monopoly on), and since the government and the people consider it essential, they've been regularly asking him if he can work more...
We sell physical and virtual gift cards on behalf of a number of retailers here in the UK (so if you went to a retailer's site online and wanted to buy a gift card from them, you're order might actually be handled by us, depending on the retailer).

Schools and councils over the past few weeks have been sending out gift cards for certain retailers that sell food as a substitute for free school meals (schools might be closed, for the most part, but it looks like that, because it's still term time, some schools are still taking on the responsibility of paying for the meals of children who would be entitled to free school meals). Some councils are doing something similar for nursing homes as well. And, of course, some people are sending gift cards to family members and friends who are struggling a the moment due to loss of work (if someone steals your money, it's basically lost, but if someone steals a gift card, we can cancel it and replace it, so it has an image of being more secure to send in the post).

It seems that we're considered "essential" or something close to it, and the way certain people are now handling the changes going on, it looks like we can stay open (and it looks like being open in and of itself might be one of the reasons we're getting busier outside of the stuff mentioned above, since people now can't buy gift cards or presents in store, which we don't handle, so they're moving to online purchases as well).
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.

User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 2702
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 01:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

Re: Quick Diachronics Challenge

Post by sangi39 »

Whoops, I sort of got so bogged down in playing Minecraft that I completely forgot that I was supposed to come back to this. My bad! [:S]
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: 7320
Joined: 12 Jul 2013 23:09
Location: PA → IN

Re: Quick Diachronics Challenge

Post by shimobaatar »

sangi39 wrote:
17 Apr 2020 21:34
Whoops, I sort of got so bogged down in playing Minecraft that I completely forgot that I was supposed to come back to this. My bad! [:S]
Oh, no worries. Would you like to give it another go at some point?

User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 2702
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 01:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

Re: Quick Diachronics Challenge

Post by sangi39 »

shimobaatar wrote:
17 Apr 2020 23:30
sangi39 wrote:
17 Apr 2020 21:34
Whoops, I sort of got so bogged down in playing Minecraft that I completely forgot that I was supposed to come back to this. My bad! [:S]
Oh, no worries. Would you like to give it another go at some point?
Of course! [:D] I'm planning to take a break from Minecraft over the weekend (two to four hours a day for five days might be enough for one week, lol), so I'm going to try and take another stab at this over the weekend [:)]
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.

ɶʙ ɞʛ
sinic
sinic
Posts: 212
Joined: 02 Aug 2019 18:47

Re: Quick Diachronics Challenge

Post by ɶʙ ɞʛ »

What's the initial phonology?

shimobaatar
korean
korean
Posts: 7320
Joined: 12 Jul 2013 23:09
Location: PA → IN

Re: Quick Diachronics Challenge

Post by shimobaatar »

Are you asking for the phonemic inventory of the protolanguage? That kind of information hasn't been provided in the past, at least not typically, as far as I know.

User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 2702
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 01:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

Re: Quick Diachronics Challenge

Post by sangi39 »

Spoiler:
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.

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. If the nearby CD is anything to go by, it could suggest something like *[xʷ] or even *[xʲ], so I'm honestly unsure.

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?

AB [ˈɸɔʃʃuteː] - [ˈjaʃʃo:] - [ˈpa:ppan] - [xʲa:n]~[xʷa:n]

---

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
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)

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?

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?

CD [ɸɔːʃuˈteː] - [ɲaːˈʃoː] - [ˈɸaːβaŋ] - [ˈxaŋ]
~[ˈfaːβaŋ]

---

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]

EF [ˈpøːhtiː] - [ˈnyːʃøː] - [ˈpoːban] - [ˈkʲuːŋ]

---

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.

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.

GH [ˈpoːɕti] - [ˈniːɕø] - [ˈpʰoppan] - [ˈkjuːn]
~[ˈpʷoppan]

---


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). 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...).

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])

IJ [ˈkoɬʲotʲe] - [ˈdʒeɬɬʲo] - [ˈkʰo:βẽ] - [ˈʃõ:]

---

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.

For the moment, I'm assuming the aspiration is original.

KL [ˈkaʊɬɬuti] - [ˈdreɬɬu] - [ˈkʲʰuɸɸõ] - [ˈtrũ]

---

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).

Oh, and the development of pre-aspiration in Word 3 reflecting a sound change in Icelandic was fun to see.

MN [ˈkoʊɬɬut] - [ˈdeɬɬe] - [ˈkoːppaŋ] - [ˈron]

---

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.

OP [ˈkoɬte] - [ˈdeɬew] - [ˈkwopan] - [ˈxlon]


------


AB [ˈɸɔʃʃuteː] - [ˈjaʃʃo:] - [ˈpa:ppan] - [xʲa:n]
CD [ɸɔːʃuˈteː] - [ɲaːˈʃoː] - [ˈɸaːβaŋ] - [ˈxaŋ]
~[ˈfaːβaŋ]

OW [ˈɸɔʃʃuteː] - [ˈnjaʃʃoː] - [ˈpa:ppan] - [xʲa:n]


---

EF [ˈpøːhtiː] - [ˈnyːʃøː] - [ˈpoːban] - [ˈkʲuːŋ]
GH [ˈpoːɕti] - [ˈniːɕø] - [ˈpʰoppan] - [ˈkjuːn]
~[ˈpʷoppan] -

IW [ˈpoːɕtiː] - [ˈniːʃøː] - [ˈpoːppaŋ] - [ˈkjuːn]

---

IJ [ˈkoɬʲotʲe] - [ˈdʒeɬɬʲo] - [ˈkʰo:βẽ] - [ˈʃõ:]
KL [ˈkaʊɬɬuti] - [ˈdreɬɬu] - [ˈkʲʰuɸɸõ] - [ˈtrũ]

IE [ˈkoːɬɬʲoti] - [ˈdreɬɬʲo] - [ˈkʰoɸɸã] - [ˈtrõ:]

---

MN [ˈkoʊɬɬut] - [ˈdeɬɬe] - [ˈkoːppaŋ] - [ˈron]
OP [ˈkoɬte] - [ˈdeɬew] - [ˈkwopan] - [ˈxlon]

OE [ˈkoːɬɬute] - [ˈdiɬɬoː] - [ˈkoːppan] - [ˈxron]



---------



OW [ˈɸɔʃʃuteː] - [ˈnjaʃʃoː] - [ˈpa:ppan] - [xʲa:n]
IW [ˈpoːɕtiː] - [ˈniːʃøː] - [ˈpoːppaŋ] - [ˈkjuːn]

PW [ˈpoʃʃutiː] - [ˈneːʃoː] - [ˈpoːppan] - [ˈkjoːn]

---

IE [ˈkoːɬɬʲoti] - [ˈdreɬɬʲo] - [ˈkʰoɸɸã] - [ˈtrõ:]
OE [ˈkoːɬɬute] - [ˈdiɬɬoː] - [ˈkoːppan] - [ˈxron]

PE [ˈkoːɬɬʲoti] - [ˈdre:ɬɬʲo:] - [ˈko:ppan] - [ˈkro:n]




------------



PW [ˈpoʃʃutiː] - [ˈneːʃoː] - [ˈpʷoːppan] - [ˈkjoːn]
PE [ˈkoːɬɬʲoti] - [ˈdre:ɬɬʲo:] - [ˈko:ppan] - [ˈkro:n]

PR [ˈkʷoːɬɬʲoti] - [ˈdre:ɬɬʲo:] - [ˈkʷo:ppan] - [ˈkro:n]
~[ˈdne:ɬɬʲo:]

*[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.
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.

User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 2702
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 01:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

Re: Quick Diachronics Challenge

Post by sangi39 »

shimobaatar wrote:
19 Apr 2020 14:18
Are you asking for the phonemic inventory of the protolanguage? That kind of information hasn't been provided in the past, at least not typically, as far as I know.
IIRC, it's been provided more or less at the discretion of whoever set the challenge to help people reach a conclusion (usually if people are pretty far off after several rounds). I've never provided them, because I think half the fun is working out what the proto-words are completely blind (like, we didn't know PIE's phoneme inventory ahead of time, so we had to work it out for ourselves, and we're still debating it today).
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: 7320
Joined: 12 Jul 2013 23:09
Location: PA → IN

Re: Quick Diachronics Challenge

Post by shimobaatar »

While responding to sangi39's latest post, I realized that there was a mistake in my original post here. Word 4 in language C was given as [ˈfaː], whereas it should be [ˈɸaː]. I have edited the post to correct this. My apologies.

In response to ɶʙ ɞʛ:
Spoiler:
As I said to sangi39, in some instances, some of your reconstructed segments differ from those present in the forms on my "answer key" in ways that shouldn't make much of a difference (for instance, [nj] vs. [ɲ]). Especially for the lower-level reconstructions, I may ignore some of these minor differences and count what you have as correct (at least for now), but for the original proto-forms, I won't be as "lenient".

I'm assuming that sequences like [au] are diphthongs and sequences like [tɬ] are affricates, and thus counting them as single segments.

Also, it seems that you may have ignored stress in your reconstructions, which I'd probably advise against.
ɶʙ ɞʛ wrote:
31 Mar 2020 21:03
Proto-word 1: [kʷakloite]
[…]
Proto-word 2: [ndreklo]
[…]
Proto-word 3: [srojwapan]
[…]
Proto-word 4: [sluan]
In terms of segments:

Word 1 - 3 correct
Word 2 - 3 correct
Word 3 - 3 correct
Word 4 - 1 correct
ɶʙ ɞʛ wrote:
31 Mar 2020 21:03
[ɸokjute] [poihti] < [pokjute]
[…]
[ɲakjo] [nuitjo] < [njukjo]
[…]
[pajwaɸ:an] [powoban] < [pojwapan]
[…]
[juw:an] [ksun] < [kjuan]
(Emphasis mine.)

Proto-ABCD-EFGH:
Word 1 - Three segments are entirely correct overall, but a fourth is only off in terms of length.
Word 2 - The initial consonant is correct.
Word 3 - The initial consonant and final syllable are correct.
Word 4 - The initial and final consonants are correct.
ɶʙ ɞʛ wrote:
31 Mar 2020 21:03
[koloite] [kauɬ:uki] [kahtɬe] < [kahloite]
[…]
[dʒeilo] [driɬ:u] [deɬeu] < [dretɬo]
[…]
[gŋoβe] [kjoɸ:aŋ] [skropan] < [skropan]
[…]
[ʃoŋ] [struŋ] [ɬon] < [slon]
(Emphasis mine.)

Proto-IJ-KLMN-OP:
Word 1 - Two of the consonants are correct, and another segment is only off in terms of length.
Word 2 - Three segments are correct.
Word 3 - Definitely off-track, although there is a [k], an [o], and [-pan] is correct.  
Word 4 - Three of the four segments are correct.
ɶʙ ɞʛ wrote:
31 Mar 2020 21:03
Proto-ABCD: [ɸokjute] - [ɲakjo] - [pajwaɸ:an] - [juw:an]
[…]
Proto-EFGH: [poihti] - [nuitjo] - [powoban] - [ksun]
[…]
Proto-IJ: [koloite] - [dʒeilo] - [gŋoβe] - [ʃoŋ]
[…]
Proto-OP: [kahtɬe] - [deɬeu] - [skropan] - [ɬon]
Proto-ABCD:
Word 1 - Two segments are correct, a third is only off in terms of length, and a fourth is probably close enough not to hinder your efforts.
Word 2 - Two segments are only off in terms of length, and the onset of the initial syllable is probably close enough.
Word 3 - [p-], [-wa-], and [-an] are all correct.
Word 4 - The first syllable is significantly off-track, but two other segments are only off in terms of length, and [-n] is correct.

Proto-EFGH:
Word 1 - Two segments are correct, but a third is only off in terms of length.  
Word 2 - The initial consonant is correct.
Word 3 - The initial consonant and [-an] are correct, as is one instance of [o], and one segment is only off in terms of length.
Word 4 - Two segments are correct, but a third is only off in terms of length.

Proto-IJ:
Word 1 - The initial syllable and final vowel are correct.
Word 2 - Only the initial consonant and final vowel are entirely correct.
Word 3 - Only [-oβ-] is correct.
Word 4 - What you've reconstructed is probably close enough.

Proto-OP:
Word 1 - Only the initial consonant and final vowel are entirely correct.
Word 2 - Spot-on!
Word 3 - [-opan] is correct. Two other segments are technically correct, but their placement/order is not.
Word 4 - Two segments are correct.

As a note: while ABCD, EFGH, IJ, and OP are all valid groupings, I should say that there's more to the story, so to speak.
ɶʙ ɞʛ wrote:
31 Mar 2020 21:03
Proto-KLMN: [kauɬ:uki] - [driɬ:u] - [kjoɸ:aŋ] - [struŋ]
It's hard for me to give the same kind of feedback here, because KLMN is not a valid grouping.

In response to sangi39:
Spoiler:
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.
[tick]
[tick] In B, yes.
[tick] 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.
[tick] 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.
[cross] 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?
[cross] 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
[tick] 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)
[cross]
[tick] In some positions, yes.
[tick] 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?
[tick] 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]
[tick] I suppose it's a question of which is original.
[cross] I wouldn't call it palatalization.
[tick] 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.
[cross] 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.
[tick] The aspiration in H does not directly correspond to [w] in G.
[cross] [opp] > [oːp] > [wop] is not correct, although I'll say you're not wrong in assuming that [w] comes from a vowel.
[cross] 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.

[tick] 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...).
[cross] 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])
[cross] All the instances of [w] in the Western languages do not necessarily have a common source.
[cross] 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.
[tick] 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.
[tick] 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?

[cross] 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.
[cross] 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.

sangi39 wrote:
19 Apr 2020 15:58
shimobaatar wrote:
19 Apr 2020 14:18
Are you asking for the phonemic inventory of the protolanguage? That kind of information hasn't been provided in the past, at least not typically, as far as I know.
IIRC, it's been provided more or less at the discretion of whoever set the challenge to help people reach a conclusion (usually if people are pretty far off after several rounds). I've never provided them, because I think half the fun is working out what the proto-words are completely blind (like, we didn't know PIE's phoneme inventory ahead of time, so we had to work it out for ourselves, and we're still debating it today).
I'm definitely inclined to agree. However, I can't say I won't change my mind, depending on how things go.

User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 2702
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 01:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

Re: Quick Diachronics Challenge

Post by sangi39 »

Spoiler:
Well in terms of segments, at least I'm 3 times closer than I was before [:P] And score on getting Word 4 right [:D]

I'll have to read through the responses properly (I don't know why I made some of the length changes I did for Proto-Eastern and Proto-Western. Chances are I lost track of what I was doing, lol.

Trying to find the correspondence in O for in P's Word 3 is going to be fun. It's not something like Armenian *dw- > erk- where one segment lenited while the other one fortified, is it?

And is Word 3 three syllables long in the proto-language?
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: 7320
Joined: 12 Jul 2013 23:09
Location: PA → IN

Re: Quick Diachronics Challenge

Post by shimobaatar »

sangi39 wrote:
19 Apr 2020 21:11
Spoiler:
Well in terms of segments, at least I'm 3 times closer than I was before [:P] And score on getting Word 4 right [:D]

I'll have to read through the responses properly (I don't know why I made some of the length changes I did for Proto-Eastern and Proto-Western. Chances are I lost track of what I was doing, lol.

Trying to find the correspondence in O for [s] in P's Word 3 is going to be fun. It's not something like Armenian *dw- > erk- where one segment lenited while the other one fortified, is it?

And is Word 3 three syllables long in the proto-language?
Spoiler:
Yeah, you've done well, I'd say!

Oh, no worries, I can definitely understand.

Well, I wouldn't say that what happened is anywhere near as unusual as *dw- > erk-. There's a single segment in P that corresponds to [s] in O, although it is a bit more complicated than just "segment X in position Y in language 1 corresponds to segment Z in position Y in language 2", if that makes sense.

[tick] Yes, it is!

User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 2702
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 01:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

Re: Quick Diachronics Challenge

Post by sangi39 »

shimobaatar wrote:
19 Apr 2020 22:03
sangi39 wrote:
19 Apr 2020 21:11
Spoiler:
Well in terms of segments, at least I'm 3 times closer than I was before [:P] And score on getting Word 4 right [:D]

I'll have to read through the responses properly (I don't know why I made some of the length changes I did for Proto-Eastern and Proto-Western. Chances are I lost track of what I was doing, lol.

Trying to find the correspondence in O for [s] in P's Word 3 is going to be fun. It's not something like Armenian *dw- > erk- where one segment lenited while the other one fortified, is it?

And is Word 3 three syllables long in the proto-language?
Spoiler:
Yeah, you've done well, I'd say!

Oh, no worries, I can definitely understand.

Well, I wouldn't say that what happened is anywhere near as unusual as *dw- > erk-. There's a single segment in P that corresponds to [s] in O, although it is a bit more complicated than just "segment X in position Y in language 1 corresponds to segment Z in position Y in language 2", if that makes sense.

[tick] Yes, it is!
Spoiler:
Metathesis?
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: 7320
Joined: 12 Jul 2013 23:09
Location: PA → IN

Re: Quick Diachronics Challenge

Post by shimobaatar »

sangi39 wrote:
19 Apr 2020 22:06
shimobaatar wrote:
19 Apr 2020 22:03
sangi39 wrote:
19 Apr 2020 21:11
Spoiler:
Well in terms of segments, at least I'm 3 times closer than I was before [:P] And score on getting Word 4 right [:D]

I'll have to read through the responses properly (I don't know why I made some of the length changes I did for Proto-Eastern and Proto-Western. Chances are I lost track of what I was doing, lol.

Trying to find the correspondence in O for [s] in P's Word 3 is going to be fun. It's not something like Armenian *dw- > erk- where one segment lenited while the other one fortified, is it?

And is Word 3 three syllables long in the proto-language?
Spoiler:
Yeah, you've done well, I'd say!

Oh, no worries, I can definitely understand.

Well, I wouldn't say that what happened is anywhere near as unusual as *dw- > erk-. There's a single segment in P that corresponds to [s] in O, although it is a bit more complicated than just "segment X in position Y in language 1 corresponds to segment Z in position Y in language 2", if that makes sense.

[tick] Yes, it is!
Spoiler:
Metathesis?
Spoiler:
[tick] Metathesis is involved!

ɶʙ ɞʛ
sinic
sinic
Posts: 212
Joined: 02 Aug 2019 18:47

Re: Quick Diachronics Challenge

Post by ɶʙ ɞʛ »

shimobaatar wrote:
19 Apr 2020 22:23
sangi39 wrote:
19 Apr 2020 22:06
shimobaatar wrote:
19 Apr 2020 22:03
sangi39 wrote:
19 Apr 2020 21:11
Spoiler:
Well in terms of segments, at least I'm 3 times closer than I was before [:P] And score on getting Word 4 right [:D]

I'll have to read through the responses properly (I don't know why I made some of the length changes I did for Proto-Eastern and Proto-Western. Chances are I lost track of what I was doing, lol.

Trying to find the correspondence in O for [s] in P's Word 3 is going to be fun. It's not something like Armenian *dw- > erk- where one segment lenited while the other one fortified, is it?

And is Word 3 three syllables long in the proto-language?
Spoiler:
Yeah, you've done well, I'd say!

Oh, no worries, I can definitely understand.

Well, I wouldn't say that what happened is anywhere near as unusual as *dw- > erk-. There's a single segment in P that corresponds to [s] in O, although it is a bit more complicated than just "segment X in position Y in language 1 corresponds to segment Z in position Y in language 2", if that makes sense.

[tick] Yes, it is!
Spoiler:
Metathesis?
Spoiler:
[tick] Metathesis is involved!
So then proto-OP word 3 could just be *kropan, with O *rk > r̥k > sk?
Also, is the original word 3 more like *korwapan, with the /r/ being in the coda of the 1st syllable?

shimobaatar
korean
korean
Posts: 7320
Joined: 12 Jul 2013 23:09
Location: PA → IN

Re: Quick Diachronics Challenge

Post by shimobaatar »

ɶʙ ɞʛ wrote:
20 Apr 2020 02:10
shimobaatar wrote:
19 Apr 2020 22:23
sangi39 wrote:
19 Apr 2020 22:06
shimobaatar wrote:
19 Apr 2020 22:03
sangi39 wrote:
19 Apr 2020 21:11
Spoiler:
Well in terms of segments, at least I'm 3 times closer than I was before [:P] And score on getting Word 4 right [:D]

I'll have to read through the responses properly (I don't know why I made some of the length changes I did for Proto-Eastern and Proto-Western. Chances are I lost track of what I was doing, lol.

Trying to find the correspondence in O for [s] in P's Word 3 is going to be fun. It's not something like Armenian *dw- > erk- where one segment lenited while the other one fortified, is it?

And is Word 3 three syllables long in the proto-language?
Spoiler:
Yeah, you've done well, I'd say!

Oh, no worries, I can definitely understand.

Well, I wouldn't say that what happened is anywhere near as unusual as *dw- > erk-. There's a single segment in P that corresponds to [s] in O, although it is a bit more complicated than just "segment X in position Y in language 1 corresponds to segment Z in position Y in language 2", if that makes sense.

[tick] Yes, it is!
Spoiler:
Metathesis?
Spoiler:
[tick] Metathesis is involved!
So then proto-OP word 3 could just be *kropan, with O *rk > r̥k > sk?
Also, is the original word 3 more like *korwapan, with the /r/ being in the coda of the 1st syllable?
[cross] To both the reconstructed word and the sequence of sound changes changes.
[cross] Only [-pan] is really correct.

This actually brings up something I've been wondering: is it generally considered acceptable in this game for participants to read the comments that have been left under spoilers for other participants? I'm not saying there's anything I can, or necessarily would, do about it either way. I'm just curious.

User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 2702
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 01:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

Re: Quick Diachronics Challenge

Post by sangi39 »

Spoiler:
A [ˈfutʃʏti] - [ˈʒetʃu] - [pəˈvapan] - [xʏˈven]
B [ˈɸɔxxuteː] - [ˈjaxxoː] - [pawˈwaɸɸa] - [ʃuwˈwaː]

AB [ˈɸɔ:ʃʃute:] - [ˈja:ʃʃo:] - [paˈwappan] - [ɧu'wa:n]

---

C [ɸɔːʃuˈdeɪ] - [ɲaːˈʃoʊ] - [ˈɸæːwaːβaː] - [ˈɸaː]
D [ɔʃˈteː] - [ɲaˈʃoː] - [ˈaːsaŋ] - [ˈaŋ]

CD [ɸɔʃʃuˈteː] - [ɲaʃˈʃoː] - [ˈɸa:Saɸaŋ] - [ˈɸa:ŋ]

(see notes below about [R])

---

E [ˈføːʰti] - [ˈnyːʃø] - [ˈfoːwaŋ] - [ˈkʰuːŋ]
F [ˈpyːdʒiː] - [ˈnyːʒyː] - [puːˈwuːbm̩] - [ˈtʃyːm]

EF [ˈpøːhtiː] - [ˈnyːʃøː] - [ˈpowapan] - [ˈkʷuːŋ]~[ˈkruːŋ]

---

G [ˈpoːɪði] - [ˈniːjø] - [ˈpwopan] - [ˈtʃuːn]
H [ˈpoːʃt] - [ˈniːʃ] - [ˈpʰoppã] - [ˈksũː]

GH [ˈpoːʃti] - [ˈniːʃø] - [ˈpuoppan] - [ˈkruːn]

---


I [ˈkoloɪt] - [ˈdʒeɪl] - [ˈgʱom] - [ˈʃõ]
J [ˈkoʎ̝ɟe] - [ˈdʒeʎʎo] - [kæˈŋoːβe] - [ˈʃuː]


IJ [ˈkoɮodje] - [ˈdʒeʎʎo] - [ˈkʰuwoβẽ] - [ˈʃõ]

---

K [ˈkaʊʃʃutsi] - [ˈɖeʃʃu] - [ˈcʰoɸɸõ] - [ˈʂʈũ]
L [ˈkeʊɬɬti] - [ˈdriɬɬu] - [ˈθuɸɸa] - [ˈtrõ]

KL [ˈkaʊɬɬuti] - [ˈdreɬɬu] - [ˈkʰjuɸɸõ] - [ˈtr̥õ]

---

M [ˈkoʊɬɬuʔ] - [ˈniɬɬe] - [ˈkuːfaŋ] - [ˈnuŋ]
N [ˈʔaʊɬuk] - [ˈgeɬe] - [ˈʔaːʰpã] - [ˈrõ]

MN [ˈkaʊɬɬut] - [ˈneɬɬe] - [ˈkoːʰpaŋ] - [ˈron]

---

O [ˈkaːtɬ] - [ˈdeɬeː] - [ˈskopãː] - [ˈɬõː]
P [ˈkoxtse] - [ˈdzeʝø] - [ˈkromb] - [ˈhon]

OP [ˈkaɬte] - [ˈdeɬeʊ] - [ˈkRopan] - [ˈxlon]

I'm saying [ˈkRopan] for Word 3 very tentatively, since I'm pretty sure it actually ruins reconstructions further up the branches. I haven't been specific about what the [R] segment actually is, because I'm honestly not sure.


------


AB [ˈɸɔ:ʃʃute:] - [ˈja:ʃʃo:] - [paˈwappan] - [ɧuˈwa:n]
CD [ɸɔʃʃuˈteː] - [ɲaʃˈʃoː] - [ˈɸa:waɸaŋ] - [ˈɸa:ŋ]

OW [ˈɸɔ:ʃʃuteː] - [ˈnja:ʃʃoː] - [paˈwappan] - [xwa:n]

It looks like [p] > [ɸ] is conditioned by stress, but then stress ended up attracted to long vowels in CD. I'm just not sure on the timetable for the changes.

---

EF [ˈpøːhtiː] - [ˈnyːʃøː] - [ˈpowapan] - [ˈkʷuːŋ]~[ˈkruːŋ]
GH [ˈpoːʃti] - [ˈniːʃø] - [ˈpuoppan] - [ˈkruːn]

IW [ˈpoːɕtiː] - [ˈniːʃøː] - [ˈpuwoppan] - [ˈkruːn]

---

IJ [ˈkoɮodje] - [ˈdʒeɮɮjo] - [ˈkʰuwoβẽ] - [ˈʃõ]
KL [ˈkaʊɬɬuti] - [ˈdreɬɬu] - [ˈkʰjuɸɸõ] - [ˈtr̥õ]

IE [ˈkoːʎʎoti] - [ˈdreʎʎo] - [ˈkuwoɸɸã] - [ˈkrõ]

(where [ʎʎ] are voiceless)

Could [ˈkʰjuɸɸõ] have come from an earlier [ˈkʰu:ɸɸõ] where the long vowel "broke" into [ju]?

---

MN [ˈkaʊɬɬut] - [ˈneɬɬe] - [ˈkoːʰpaŋ] - [ˈron]
OP [ˈkaɬte] - [ˈdeɬeʊ] - [ˈkropan] - [ˈxlon]

OE [ˈkauɬɬute] - [ˈneɬɬeʊ] - [ˈkRoppan] - [ˈkron]



---------



OW [ˈɸɔ:ʃʃuteː] - [ˈnja:ʃʃoː] - [ˈpawappan] - [xwa:n]
IW [ˈpoːɕtiː] - [ˈniːʃøː] - [ˈpuwoppan] - [ˈkruːn]

PW [ˈpɔ:ʃʃuteː] - [ˈneːʃʃoː] - [ˈpowoppan] - [ˈkroːn]

---

IE [ˈkoːʎʎoti] - [ˈdreʎʎo] - [ˈkuwoɸɸã] - [ˈkrõ]
OE [ˈkauɬɬute] - [ˈneɬɬeʊ] - [ˈkRoppan] - [ˈkron]

PE [ˈkɔːʎʎoti] - [ˈnre:ʎʎo:] - [ˈkuRoppan] - [ˈkro:n]

(again, where [ʎʎ] is voiceless)



------------



PW [ˈpɔ:ʃʃuteː] - [ˈneːʃʃoː] - [ˈpowoppan] - [ˈkroːn]
PE [ˈkɔːʎʎoti] - [ˈnre:ʎʎo:] - [ˈkRo:ppan] - [ˈkro:n]

PR [ˈkʷɔːʎʎote] - [ˈnre:ʎʎo] - [ˈkʷoRoppan] - [ˈkro:n]

*[ʎʎ] again, representing a voiceless palatal lateral fricative.

I still don't know was [R] is. If I had to take a stab in the dark, I'd guess [ s], but it was maintained only in D and O, and as [r] in P, so something like [ˈkʷosoppan]
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: 7320
Joined: 12 Jul 2013 23:09
Location: PA → IN

Re: Quick Diachronics Challenge

Post by shimobaatar »

In response to sangi39's latest post:
Spoiler:
sangi39 wrote:
22 Apr 2020 13:36
A [ˈfutʃʏti] - [ˈʒetʃu] - [pəˈvapan] - [xʏˈven]
B [ˈɸɔxxuteː] - [ˈjaxxoː] - [pawˈwaɸɸa] - [ʃuwˈwaː]

AB [ˈɸɔ:ʃʃute:] - [ˈja:ʃʃo:] - [paˈwappan] - [ɧu'wa:n]
Word 1 - Spot on!
Word 2 - Spot on!
Word 3 - You're definitely on the right track here! Only two segments are off, one of which is only off in terms of length.
Word 4 - Correct except for [ɧ-].
sangi39 wrote:
22 Apr 2020 13:36
C [ɸɔːʃuˈdeɪ] - [ɲaːˈʃoʊ] - [ˈɸæːwaːβaː] - [ˈɸaː]
D [ɔʃˈteː] - [ɲaˈʃoː] - [ˈaːsaŋ] - [ˈaŋ]

CD [ɸɔʃʃuˈteː] - [ɲaʃˈʃoː] - [ˈɸa:Saɸaŋ] - [ˈɸa:ŋ]

(see notes below about [R])
Word 1 - Spot on!
Word 2 - Spot on!
Word 3 - You're definitely on the right track here as well! Aside from the mystery segment, [-ŋ] is close enough. Everything else is technically correct, but you're missing a segment.
Word 4 - You're very close. The vowel is off in terms of length, and [-ŋ] is probably close enough.

Is the [S] here equivalent to the [R] below, then?
sangi39 wrote:
22 Apr 2020 13:36
E [ˈføːʰti] - [ˈnyːʃø] - [ˈfoːwaŋ] - [ˈkʰuːŋ]
F [ˈpyːdʒiː] - [ˈnyːʒyː] - [puːˈwuːbm̩] - [ˈtʃyːm]

EF [ˈpøːhtiː] - [ˈnyːʃøː] - [ˈpowapan] - [ˈkʷuːŋ]~[ˈkruːŋ]
Word 1 - I think you've reconstructed this word as [ˈpøːhtiː] all three times. There's still one segment that's not correct.
Word 2 - Spot-on!
Word 3 - I think you're getting warmer. [p-…-pan] is correct, [-owa-] is not. The placement of stress is also incorrect.
Word 4 - [ˈkruː-] is correct, and [-ŋ] is probably close enough.
sangi39 wrote:
22 Apr 2020 13:36
G [ˈpoːɪði] - [ˈniːjø] - [ˈpwopan] - [ˈtʃuːn]
H [ˈpoːʃt] - [ˈniːʃ] - [ˈpʰoppã] - [ˈksũː]

GH [ˈpoːʃti] - [ˈniːʃø] - [ˈpuoppan] - [ˈkruːn]
Word 1 - Two consonants are slightly off, as is the number of syllables.
Word 2 - You're very close! One of the consonants is slightly off, in the same was as two of the consonants in Word 1.
Word 3 - [p-…-oppan] is correct. The quality of the first vowel is off, although it's probably close enough. Also, you're missing a segment, and the placement of stress is incorrect.
Word 4 - Spot on!
sangi39 wrote:
22 Apr 2020 13:36
I [ˈkoloɪt] - [ˈdʒeɪl] - [ˈgʱom] - [ˈʃõ]
J [ˈkoʎ̝ɟe] - [ˈdʒeʎʎo] - [kæˈŋoːβe] - [ˈʃuː]


IJ [ˈkoɮodje] - [ˈdʒeʎʎo] - [ˈkʰuwoβẽ] - [ˈʃõ]
Word 1 - Spot on!
Word 2 - Very close! If I'm treating [CʲCʲ] as equivalent to [Cj], you're only off in terms of voicing.
Word 3 - Only [-oβ-] is correct. The remaining segments and the placement of stress are incorrect.
Word 4 - This is only off in terms of vowel length.
sangi39 wrote:
22 Apr 2020 13:36
K [ˈkaʊʃʃutsi] - [ˈɖeʃʃu] - [ˈcʰoɸɸõ] - [ˈʂʈũ]
L [ˈkeʊɬɬti] - [ˈdriɬɬu] - [ˈθuɸɸa] - [ˈtrõ]

KL [ˈkaʊɬɬuti] - [ˈdreɬɬu] - [ˈkʰjuɸɸõ] - [ˈtr̥õ]
Word 1 - Spot on!
Word 2 - Spot-on!
Word 3 - The qualities of both vowels are still off.
Word 4 - [ˈtr̥õ]~[ˈtrõ] is not technically incorrect, but there's still something you're missing.
sangi39 wrote:
22 Apr 2020 13:36
M [ˈkoʊɬɬuʔ] - [ˈniɬɬe] - [ˈkuːfaŋ] - [ˈnuŋ]
N [ˈʔaʊɬuk] - [ˈgeɬe] - [ˈʔaːʰpã] - [ˈrõ]

MN [ˈkaʊɬɬut] - [ˈneɬɬe] - [ˈkoːʰpaŋ] - [ˈron]
Word 1 - Spot on!
Word 2 - While not technically incorrect, there's still a segment you're missing.
Word 3 - Very close! I'd say you're essentially there, except for [-ŋ], but again, that's probably close enough.
Word 4 - Spot on!
sangi39 wrote:
22 Apr 2020 13:36
O [ˈkaːtɬ] - [ˈdeɬeː] - [ˈskopãː] - [ˈɬõː]
P [ˈkoxtse] - [ˈdzeʝø] - [ˈkromb] - [ˈhon]

OP [ˈkaɬte] - [ˈdeɬeʊ] - [ˈkRopan] - [ˈxlon]

I'm saying [ˈkRopan] for Word 3 very tentatively, since I'm pretty sure it actually ruins reconstructions further up the branches. I haven't been specific about what the [R] segment actually is, because I'm honestly not sure.
Word 1 - The nucleus of the stressed syllable is half correct, I'd say. The rest is correct.
Word 2 - Spot on!
Word 3 - [k-…-opan] is correct, as is [o] being the stressed vowel. The number of syllables, however, is off.
Word 4 - Again, [-on] is correct, and while neither [x] nor [l] are what I had in mind, they might be close enough. I might recommend looking at Word 4 in other branches.
sangi39 wrote:
22 Apr 2020 13:36
AB [ˈɸɔ:ʃʃute:] - [ˈja:ʃʃo:] - [paˈwappan] - [ɧuˈwa:n]
CD [ɸɔʃʃuˈteː] - [ɲaʃˈʃoː] - [ˈɸa:waɸaŋ] - [ˈɸa:ŋ]

OW [ˈɸɔ:ʃʃuteː] - [ˈnja:ʃʃoː] - [paˈwappan] - [xwa:n]

It looks like [p] > [ɸ] is conditioned by stress, but then stress ended up attracted to long vowels in CD. I'm just not sure on the timetable for the changes.
Proto-OW:
Word 1 - Spot on!
Word 2 - Spot on!
Word 3 - You're getting closer! [p-…-pan] is correct, as is the placement of stress. The stressed vowel is [a], and it is preceded by [w]. You're still missing a segment, though, and as I indicated last time, the first [a] should be long.
Word 4 - If I'm treating [ɸ] as correct, I should treat [x] as correct too. In that case, none of the segments you've reconstructed are incorrect, but you're still missing one.

[tick] Voiceless unaspirated stop > voiceless aspirated stop > voiceless fricative in the onset of a stressed syllable. And yes, the shift in stress is a CD-specific change.
sangi39 wrote:
22 Apr 2020 13:36
EF [ˈpøːhtiː] - [ˈnyːʃøː] - [ˈpowapan] - [ˈkʷuːŋ]~[ˈkruːŋ]
GH [ˈpoːʃti] - [ˈniːʃø] - [ˈpuoppan] - [ˈkruːn]

IW [ˈpoːɕtiː] - [ˈniːʃøː] - [ˈpuwoppan] - [ˈkruːn]
Proto-IW:
Word 1 - As I said before, your first reconstruction, with [-ʃ-], was closer. Additionally, The number of syllables is off.
Word 2 - Spot-on!
Word 3 - [p-…-pan] is correct, as is [-o-]. However, the remaining segments are off, as is the placement of stress.
Word 4 - Spot on!
sangi39 wrote:
22 Apr 2020 13:36
IJ [ˈkoɮodje] - [ˈdʒeɮɮjo] - [ˈkʰuwoβẽ] - [ˈʃõ]
KL [ˈkaʊɬɬuti] - [ˈdreɬɬu] - [ˈkʰjuɸɸõ] - [ˈtr̥õ]

IE [ˈkoːʎʎoti] - [ˈdreʎʎo] - [ˈkuwoɸɸã] - [ˈkrõ]

(where [ʎʎ] are voiceless)

Could [ˈkʰjuɸɸõ] have come from an earlier [ˈkʰu:ɸɸõ] where the long vowel "broke" into [ju]?
Proto-IE (not that one):
Word 1 - Again, none of the syllable nuclei are entirely correct. The POA of the medial geminate is also still off.
Word 2 - The POA of the medial geminate and the final vowel are still off.
Word 3 - [k-…-oɸɸã] is correct. As I said last time, however, [-o-] is the stressed vowel. [-uw-] and the placement of stress are incorrect.
Word 4 - All correct except for [k-].

[cross] The origin of [-j-] here is similar to the origin of [-w-] in G, I'd say.
sangi39 wrote:
22 Apr 2020 13:36
MN [ˈkaʊɬɬut] - [ˈneɬɬe] - [ˈkoːʰpaŋ] - [ˈron]
OP [ˈkaɬte] - [ˈdeɬeʊ] - [ˈkropan] - [ˈxlon]

OE [ˈkauɬɬute] - [ˈneɬɬeʊ] - [ˈkRoppan] - [ˈkron]
Proto-OE:
Word 1 - Spot on!
Word 2 - Very close! All of the segments that you have are correct, but you're missing one.
Word 3 - [k-…-pan] is correct, as is [-o-] being the stressed vowel. Aside from the mystery [R], the remaining segment is off, as is the number of syllables.
Word 4 - All correct except for [k-].
sangi39 wrote:
22 Apr 2020 13:36
OW [ˈɸɔ:ʃʃuteː] - [ˈnja:ʃʃoː] - [ˈpawappan] - [xwa:n]
IW [ˈpoːɕtiː] - [ˈniːʃøː] - [ˈpuwoppan] - [ˈkruːn]

PW [ˈpɔ:ʃʃuteː] - [ˈneːʃʃoː] - [ˈpowoppan] - [ˈkroːn]
Proto-Western:
Word 1 - The nucleus of the initial syllable is off. Otherwise, you're correct.
Word 2 - [-oː] is still not correct. Otherwise, you're very close.
Word 3 - [p-…-pan] is correct, as is [-o-] in the second syllable. The placement of stress and the remaining segments are off.
Word 4 - Spot on!
sangi39 wrote:
22 Apr 2020 13:36
IE [ˈkoːʎʎoti] - [ˈdreʎʎo] - [ˈkuwoɸɸã] - [ˈkrõ]
OE [ˈkauɬɬute] - [ˈneɬɬeʊ] - [ˈkRoppan] - [ˈkron]

PE [ˈkɔːʎʎoti] - [ˈnre:ʎʎo:] - [ˈkuRoppan] - [ˈkro:n]

(again, where [ʎʎ] is voiceless)
Proto-Eastern:
Word 1 - None of the syllable nuclei are correct, and the POA of the medial geminate is also still off.
Word 2 - As I indicated last time, your first reconstruction was correct in having the first vowel as a short [-e-]. The nucleus of the final vowel is still incorrect, and the POA of the medial geminate is also still off. Additionally, there's a segment you're missing.
Word 3 - [k-…-pan] is correct, as is the vowel of the second syllable being [-o-]. The rest of the segments and the placement of stress are off.
Word 4 - As I mentioned last time, the initial consonant was not [k-].
sangi39 wrote:
22 Apr 2020 13:36
PW [ˈpɔ:ʃʃuteː] - [ˈneːʃʃoː] - [ˈpowoppan] - [ˈkroːn]
PE [ˈkɔːʎʎoti] - [ˈnre:ʎʎo:] - [ˈkRo:ppan] - [ˈkro:n]

PR [ˈkʷɔːʎʎote] - [ˈnre:ʎʎo] - [ˈkʷoRoppan] - [ˈkro:n]

*[ʎʎ] again, representing a voiceless palatal lateral fricative.

I still don't know was [R] is. If I had to take a stab in the dark, I'd guess [ s], but it was maintained only in D and O, and as [r] in P, so something like [ˈkʷosoppan]
In terms of segments:

Word 1 - 2 correct
Word 2 - 3 correct
Word 3 - 5 correct
Word 4 - 4 correct!

[cross] [R] was not [s]. The [r] in P did come from [s], via [z], but that [s] does not correspond to your [R].

ɶʙ ɞʛ
sinic
sinic
Posts: 212
Joined: 02 Aug 2019 18:47

Re: Quick Diachronics Challenge

Post by ɶʙ ɞʛ »

So what would proto-3 be? I think the initial consonants in proto-1 and proto-3 are identical, as they are either both labial, both velar, or both nonexistent. I'd say they're both *kʷ. However, the following vowels are different:

A: u ə
B: ɔ a~au
C: ɔ: æ:
D: ɔ a:

E: ø: o:
F: y: u:
G: o:i 0
H: o: o

I: o 0
J: o æ

K: au o
L: eu u
M: ou u:
N: au a:

O: a: 0
P: o 0

It appears that in 1 the vowel is always higher or the same height, or else either it is a diphthong or the vowel in 3 is null. This means the vowel is probably higher originally in 1.

1. [kʷoklote]
2. [ndreklo]
3. [kʷaroapan]
4. [sluan]

shimobaatar
korean
korean
Posts: 7320
Joined: 12 Jul 2013 23:09
Location: PA → IN

Re: Quick Diachronics Challenge

Post by shimobaatar »

In response to ɶʙ ɞʛ's latest post:
Spoiler:
ɶʙ ɞʛ wrote:
25 Apr 2020 22:40
So what would proto-3 be? I think the initial consonants in proto-1 and proto-3 are identical, as they are either both labial, both velar, or both nonexistent. I'd say they're both *kʷ.
[tick] *kʷ is correct.
ɶʙ ɞʛ wrote:
25 Apr 2020 22:40
However, the following vowels are different:

A: u ə
B: ɔ a~au
C: ɔ: æ:
D: ɔ a:

E: ø: o:
F: y: u:
G: o:i 0
H: o: o

I: o 0
J: o æ

K: au o
L: eu u
M: ou u:
N: au a:

O: a: 0
P: o 0
These correspondences are largely correct, but please note the following:

First, when I say "correspondences" here, I don't mean that the two sounds descend from the same sound in the protolanguage. When I say that X in word 1 corresponds to Y in word 3, I mean that they were both immediately preceded by the initial *kʷ in their respective words, if that makes sense.

In language B, [ɔ] in word 1 corresponds to the monophthong [a] in word 3, and in language G, the monophthong [oː] in word 1 corresponds to Ø/0 in word 3.

In language H, [oː] in word 1 does not correspond to [o] in word 3. Similarly, in languages K and L, [aʊ̯] and [eʊ̯] in word 1 do not correspond to [o] and [u] in word 3, and in languages M and N, [oʊ̯] and [aʊ̯] in word 1 do not correspond to [uː] and [aː] in word 3.

Also, as I mentioned in my response to your original post, there are some issues with your subgroupings, particularly KLMN.
ɶʙ ɞʛ wrote:
25 Apr 2020 22:40
It appears that in 1 the vowel is always higher or the same height, or else either it is a diphthong or the vowel in 3 is null. This means the vowel is probably higher originally in 1.
[cross] I think it would be misleading for me to say that this is correct.
ɶʙ ɞʛ wrote:
25 Apr 2020 22:40
1. [kʷoklote]
2. [ndreklo]
3. [kʷaroapan]
4. [sluan]
In terms of segments:

Word 1 - 3 correct
Word 2 - 3 correct
Word 3 - 4 correct
Word 4 - 1 correct

Your reconstructions for words 2 and 4 appear to be the same as last time, so my responses to those have not changed.

Finally, as I said in my response on April 19th to your original post, I would recommend not ignoring prosody.

ɶʙ ɞʛ
sinic
sinic
Posts: 212
Joined: 02 Aug 2019 18:47

Re: Quick Diachronics Challenge

Post by ɶʙ ɞʛ »

Proto-4 isn't *kluon, is it? For KL, a chain shift happens in the form of *kl > *kr > *kj if this is the case, with later *kr becoming *tr, metathesizing to *rt in K (or maybe this is more of that Armenian shift *dw > rk, but with two coronals, going *tr > *t: > *ht > *rt as in Nivkh?) while simplifying to just *t or *r elsewhere.

Post Reply