Quick Diachronics Challenge

A forum for all topics related to constructed languages
User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 2761
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 01:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

Re: Quick Diachronics Challenge

Post by sangi39 »

Update: Word 2 in Language 11 should be [i˥'spʰra˩]. I seem to have deleted the final vowel without realising it before copying it over [:P]
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: 2761
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 01:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

Re: Quick Diachronics Challenge

Post by sangi39 »

So it has been over a week. I wanted to reply on Saturday or Sunday, but I was waiting for more than one response.

I'll try to reply to Shimobaatar this evening after work, and if anyone else throws in any more guesses by then, I'll try responding to them 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: 2761
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 01:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

Re: Quick Diachronics Challenge

Post by sangi39 »

Spoiler:
shimobaatar wrote:
12 May 2020 03:25
1) [ˈjas.tsʰrak] - [ˈθpʰəʒi] - [ˈθa.tsʼa] - [ˈpʰiʃ]
2) [ˈjas.rak] - [ˈs̪pʰʃi˨˩] - [ˈt̪ʰa˨˩.tsa] - [ˈfirs]

[ˈjas.t͡sʰrak] - [ˈs̪pʰrʲiʔ] - [ˈt̪ʰaʔ.t͡sa] - [ˈpʰirs] (Proto-1/2)

Regarding [rʲ] in the second word being close enough, would [ʒ] be "better"? 
[ʒ] would be "better", but overall that's spot on, so I'm happy to accept either.



shimobaatar wrote:
12 May 2020 03:25
3) [ˈjah.srak] - [ˈfʂiʔ] - [ˈθa.tsa] - [haˈris]
4) [ˈjaː.ʂak] - [ˈfrʲiʔ] - [ˈθa.tsa] - [aˈrasu] 

[ˈjah.srak] - [ˈfrʲiʔ] - [ˈθaʔ.t͡sa] - [haˈresu] (Proto-3/4)

Regarding [h] in the fourth word, would [f] be "better"?
sangi39 wrote:
11 May 2020 20:13
And you're right to be hesitant about the stressed vowel too. It's not /i/, but it's not /a/ either.
In light of this, I'm tentatively "compromising" with [e]. 
[f] would be better, but, again, it was close enough that I'm accepting either (like, you can only reconstruct it on the basis of comparison with more distant relatives, sooo... [:P] )

The only wrong part here is the stressed vowel of Word 2, but [e] is closer.



shimobaatar wrote:
12 May 2020 03:25
[ˈjas.t͡sʰrak] - [ˈs̪pʰrʲiʔ] - [ˈt̪ʰaʔ.t͡sa] - [ˈpʰirs] (Proto-1/2)
[ˈjah.srak] - [ˈfrʲiʔ] - [ˈθaʔ.t͡sa] - [haˈresu] (Proto-3/4)

[ˈjas.t͡sʰrak] - [ˈspʰrʲiʔ] - [ˈt̪ʰaʔ.t͡sa] - [ˈpʰr̩su] (Proto-1/2/3/4)
sangi39 wrote:
11 May 2020 20:13
Words 1, 2, and 3 are spot on as well, and you're right about the stress shift in this branch as well, and that it did affect Word 4. I don't know if it helps at all, but Word 4 here has one too many syllables.
Interesting! Hmm…

This (the fourth word in Proto-1/2/3/4) has proven to be the most challenging part of this whole thing, to the point where I'm coming back to it after dealing with literally everything else first. 

I ended up rambling on a bit here, but I've attempted to condense some of the main "points" here:

I'm fairly confident about the initial consonant. I suppose I'm assuming that the differing reflexes of [pʰ-] in 3/4 are based on the fact that it was originally preceded by [s-] in the second word, but not in the fourth. 

I'm also fairly confident about the other two consonants as well, although not about their positions in the word. The fact that, in languages 3 and 4, the rhotic and sibilant are separated by a (difficult to reconstruct) vowel is particularly troubling, given the evidence from most of the other Western languages. 

Out of these four languages, the fourth word only ends in a vowel in language 4. Based on the cognates from much of the rest of the family, I'm going to continue to assume, for now, that language 4 was the only member of this branch to retain that [-u].

At least for now, I'm going to assume that stress only shifted once, and therefore, I feel that I should assume that the stressed vowels in all four languages correspond to one another. 

After discarding a number of possible reconstructions, I think I'll go with [ˈpʰr̩su] for now, although I'm not at all confident that it's correct. I'm still stumped as to how to explain this word's developments in this part of the family, especially without reconstructing three syllables. My biggest issue, I suppose, is how to explain the pre-tonic syllable in 3/4. If [ˈpʰr̩su] were correct, I could see it becoming [ˈpʰirs] in 1/2 quite easily. In 3/4, however, the rhotic and the sibilant are separate, so it likely became something like [ˈpʰrVsu] at first instead. But then why break up that initial cluster with an [-a-] if the one in the second word was left alone? Maybe [pʰ] had already become [h] by that point, and although [frʲ-] was allowed, [hr-] wasn't?

In any case, I'll definitely have to give all of this a lot more thought, but to prevent myself from getting stuck here, so to speak, and never submitting anything, this is where I'll leave it for now. 
Well, after all of the thinking... every word is spot on [:)]



shimobaatar wrote:
12 May 2020 03:25
5) [eɕˈɕatʂ] - [ˈsfje] - [ˈθa.tsi] - [forˈʂu]
6) [eθˈθjatʃ] - [ˈspʰje] - [ˈtʰa.tse] - [pʰorˈʂu]

[esˈt͡sʰjat͡ʃ] - [ˈspʰje] - [ˈtʰa.t͡sæ] - [pʰorˈʂu] (Proto-5/6)
sangi39 wrote:
11 May 2020 20:13
The aspirated /t͡sʰ/ was treated differently, mostly on the basis that it was an affricate rather than a stop, so it shifts to a fricative as an exception [:)]
Ah, that makes sense!
sangi39 wrote:
11 May 2020 20:13
And again, this is a valid grouping, and other than the final vowel of Word 3, you've reconstructed all of the proto-words correctly.
After reading this, I was originally going to suggest [-i] instead, but given the final [-a] in the word's cognates in languages 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 11, 13, 14, and 15, reconstructing a high vowel here didn't quite feel right to me. Once I got to your response to my reconstruction of Proto-7/8, however…

I'm still not sure how comfortable I am with positing [-æ] > [-i], but I'll stick with it for now. 
Same as before, just that single final vowel that's off, but your previous guess of [e] was closer.



shimobaatar wrote:
12 May 2020 03:25
7) [asˈtsʰraʃ] - [ˈspʼrɪ] - [ˈtʼa.tsa] - [pʰuʂˈʂu]
8) [asˈtsʰrax] - [ˈspʼrɪ] - [ˈtʼats] - [pʰuˈʂu]

[asˈt͡sʰraʃ] - [ˈspʼrɪ] - [ˈtʼa.t͡sæ] - [pʰuʂˈʂu] (Proto-7/8)
sangi39 wrote:
11 May 2020 20:13
The only thing I have is that the final vowel of Word 3 is off (it's actually the same vowel as in Word 3 of Proto-5/6).
Oh, really? Interesting… 

In languages 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, and 11, the third word has [a] in both syllables. In languages 5 and 6, it has [a] in the first syllable, but either [-i] or [-e] in the second syllable. In languages 13, 14, and 15, it has [ɑ(ː)] in the first syllable, but [-a] in the second. In all other languages, the third word is monosyllabic, and the nucleus of its one syllable is [a], except for in language 16, where it's [ɔɑ]. 

Based on the difference in backness between the vowels of the third word's two syllables in languages 5, 6, 13, 14, and 15, I'm tentatively going to go with [-æ] here. 
sangi39 wrote:
11 May 2020 20:13
I'm happy to accept the coda /ʂ/ of the first syllable of Word 4 as well (as has happened elsewhere, I have this down as a late stage sound that does arise before the languages split, so it's immediately correct, because on the basis of what's there in 7 and 8, I can't think of a reason not to reach that conclusion [:)]
Is [pʰurˈʂu] more of what you had in mind? 

Thank you for your leniency, so to speak, in instances like this, by the way!
For that final vowel, I'd say you're about as equally close as you were with [a], although this guess is the right height.

Other than that, all correct [:)]



shimobaatar wrote:
12 May 2020 03:25
[esˈt͡sʰjat͡ʃ] - [ˈspʰje] - [ˈtʰa.t͡sæ] - [pʰorˈʂu] (Proto-5/6)
[asˈt͡sʰraʃ] - [ˈspʼrɪ] - [ˈtʼa.t͡sæ] - [pʰuʂˈʂu] (Proto-7/8)

[asˈt͡sʰrat͡ʃ] - [ˈspʰrɪʔ] - [ˈtʰaʔ.t͡sæ] - [pʰurˈʂu] (Proto-5/6/7/8)
The guesses are closer, but still a bit off, which I'll touch on below:

shimobaatar wrote:
12 May 2020 03:25
Hmm… if [a] is just "slightly off", I feel a bit better about [-æ].
"Slightly" may have been misleading. [a] was a little more off than that.

shimobaatar wrote:
12 May 2020 03:25
Interesting… given the presence of an initial consonant in all other cognates, I assumed there was one originally here, too, despite none of the languages in this branch having an initial consonant in the first word. For now I'm going to assume there was no initial consonant in Proto-5/6/7/8.

Given the difference between [e] in 5/6 and [a] in 7/8, as well as the [j-] in languages 1, 2, 3, 4, and 12, I assumed there was originally an initial [j-] that caused the vowel to front in 5/6, but disappeared in all four languages. Looking over the cognates of the first word in general, I'm actually not entirely sure whether the vowel was originally something closer to [a] or something closer to [e]. Well, of all the "Western" languages, only 5/6 have [e]… so maybe [a] was fronted and raised after the shift from [r] > [j] in the following syllable? Or [e] could have become [a] in 7/8 under the influence of the [a] in the following syllable…

I may just be reading into this too much, but because of the way you phrased your response, referring to the two initial segments [ja-], I'm tentatively going to assume it was just [e-] instead. But it does bother me that all other "Western" languages have [a(ː)]…

Actually, based on your feedback on my reconstruction of Proto-Western, I might flip back to [a-] and assume I was just reading too much into what you'd said.
The [j] wasn't original, and the initial vowel wasn't [e] either.

shimobaatar wrote:
12 May 2020 03:25
from an earlier sequence of [-rˈʂ-], it doesn't feel right to reconstruct, for instance, [pʰr-] for Proto-5/6/7/8. 
Why not both? [;P]



shimobaatar wrote:
12 May 2020 03:25
[ˈjas.t͡sʰrak] - [ˈspʰrʲiʔ] - [ˈt̪ʰaʔ.t͡sa] - [ˈpʰr̩su] (Proto-1/2/3/4)
[asˈt͡sʰrat͡ʃ] - [ˈspʰrɪʔ] - [ˈtʰaʔ.t͡sæ] - [pʰurˈʂu] (Proto-5/6/7/8)

[asˈt͡sʰrak] - [ˈspʰriʔ] - [ˈtʰaʔ.t͡sæ] - [pʰr̩ˈʂu] (Proto-Western)
shimobaatar wrote:
12 May 2020 03:25
(similarly to at least some of the Slavic cognates of the English word "apple", for instance)
Close, but you're right that [a] isn't the right vowel either.

The final vowel of Word 3 is off as well, but I'd say [æ] is closer, in height at least.

Other than that, all spot on.



 
shimobaatar wrote:
12 May 2020 03:25
9) [dʒaːˈtʰrax] - [aˈspʰri] - [ˈʈʰad] - [pʰeːˈʂu]
10) [ʒeːˈtʰraː] - [aˈspʰri] - [ˈʈʰar] - [pʰeiʒu]

[ʒaːˈtʰrax] - [aˈspʰri] - [ˈʈʰad] - [pʰeːˈʂu] (Proto-9/10)
All spot on [:)]



shimobaatar wrote:
12 May 2020 03:25
11) [ʝa˥ˈtʰra˥] - [i˥ˈspʰra˩] - [ˈʈʰa˩.ta˩] - [pʰr˥ˈʂu˩]
12) [ja˥ˈtʰra˥] - [je˥ˈpʰra˩] - [ˈʈʰat˩] - [pʰr˥ˈʂu˩]

[ja˥ˈtʰra˥] - [i˥ˈspʰra˩] - [ˈʈʰa˩.ta˩] - [pʰr̩˥ˈʂu˩] (Proto-11/12)
The initial vowel for Word 2 is closer than your original guess, but a bit off.



shimobaatar wrote:
12 May 2020 03:25
[ʒaːˈtʰrax] - [aˈspʰri] - [ˈʈʰad] - [pʰeːˈʂu] (Proto-9/10)
[ja˥ˈtʰra˥] - [i˥ˈspʰra˩] - [ˈʈʰa˩.ta˩] - [pʰr̩˥ˈʂu˩] (Proto-11/12)

[jahˈtʰrax] - [əˈspʰriʔ] - [ˈʈʰaʔ.tʼa] - [pʰr̩ˈʂu] (Proto-9/10/11/12)
Ah, this is all spot on apart from the ejective, which is my fault. I said it was off in terms of MOA, when I meant voicing, as you noted.



shimobaatar wrote:
12 May 2020 03:25
13) [mesˈtʰrɔj] - [ˈspʰri] - [ˈtʰɑ.tʼa] - [pʰraˈso]
14) [ŋɛˈtʰraj] - [ˈspʰri] - [ˈtʰɑ.tʼa] - [pʰrɔˈso]

[ŋesˈtʰraj] - [ˈspʰriʔ] - [ˈtʰɑ.tʼa] - [pʰraˈso] (Proto-13/14)
That's all spot on, I think.



shimobaatar wrote:
12 May 2020 03:25
15) [ɣeˈtʂʰeː] - [ˈpʰʂiː] - [ˈtʰɑː.da] - [pʰʂaˈzoː]
16) [heˈtʂʰei] - [ˈʈʂʰei] - [ˈtʰɔɑl] - [ʈʂʰaˈrou]

[ɣeˈtʂʰeː] - [ˈpʰʂiː] - [ˈtʰɑː.da] - [pʰʂaˈzoː] (Proto-15/16)
Same as before, nothing much to say here [:)]



shimobaatar wrote:
12 May 2020 03:25
[ŋesˈtʰraj] - [ˈspʰriʔ] - [ˈtʰɑ.tʼa] - [pʰraˈso] (Proto-13/14)
[ɣeˈtʂʰeː] - [ˈpʰʂiː] - [ˈtʰɑː.da] - [pʰʂaˈzoː] (Proto-15/16)

[ɣesˈtʰraj] - [ˈspʰriʔ] - [ˈtʰɑʔ.ta] - [pʰraˈso] (Proto-13/14/15/16)
The initial of Word 1 is the only thing that's wrong here.



shimobaatar wrote:
12 May 2020 03:25
[jahˈtʰrax] - [əˈspʰriʔ] - [ˈʈʰaʔ.tʼa] - [pʰr̩ˈʂu] (Proto-9/10/11/12)
[ɣesˈtʰraj] - [ˈspʰriʔ] - [ˈtʰɑʔ.ta] - [pʰraˈso] (Proto-13/14/15/16)

[ɣesˈtʰrak] - [ˈspʰriʔ] - [ˈʈʰaʔ.tæ] - [pʰrəˈʂu] (Proto-Eastern)
The only things wrong here are the initial of Word 1 and the final vowel of Word 3.



shimobaatar wrote:
12 May 2020 03:25
[asˈt͡sʰrak] - [ˈspʰriʔ] - [ˈtʰaʔ.t͡sæ] - [pʰr̩ˈʂu] (Proto-Western)
[ɣesˈtʰrak] - [ˈspʰriʔ] - [ˈʈʰaʔ.tæ] - [pʰrəˈʂu] (Proto-Eastern)

[ɣesˈtʰrak] - [ˈspʰriʔ] - [ˈʈʰaʔ.tæ] - [pʰr̩ˈʂu] (Proto-World)
This is incredibly close. As with Proto-Easter, the initial for Word 1 is wrong, as is the final for Word 3, and then this:
shimobaatar wrote:
12 May 2020 03:25
Relative "weakness", hmm? I suppose I'm assuming the first word didn't change in Proto-Western, then, although I could have gone with [-rə-] or [-ər-] instead of [-r̩-].
I can see why you could have gone either way. It's a tricky syllable that was subject to a lot of change. For now, I'll say that a syllabic rhotic isn't right.
 
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: 7474
Joined: 12 Jul 2013 23:09
Location: PA → IN

Re: Quick Diachronics Challenge

Post by shimobaatar »

Spoiler:
Many thanks again for all your feedback! I ended up "bouncing around" a lot, comparing your comments about the third word's final vowel in various languages, for instance, so I hope I didn't miss anything. 

1) [ˈjas.tsʰrak] - [ˈθpʰəʒi] - [ˈθa.tsʼa] - [ˈpʰiʃ]
2) [ˈjas.rak] - [ˈs̪pʰʃi˨˩] - [ˈt̪ʰa˨˩.tsa] - [ˈfirs]

[ˈjas.t͡sʰrak] - [ˈs̪pʰrʲiʔ]~[ˈs̪pʰʒiʔ] - [ˈt̪ʰaʔ.t͡sa] - [ˈpʰirs] (Proto-1/2)

3) [ˈjah.srak] - [ˈfʂiʔ] - [ˈθa.tsa] - [haˈris]
4) [ˈjaː.ʂak] - [ˈfrʲiʔ] - [ˈθa.tsa] - [aˈrasu] 

[ˈjah.srak] - [ˈfrʲiʔ] - [ˈθaʔ.t͡sa] - [haˈrəsu]~[faˈrəsu] (Proto-3/4)
sangi39 wrote:
19 May 2020 19:35
The only wrong part here is the stressed vowel of Word 2, but [e] is closer.
(I'm assuming you meant the fourth word.)

Hmm… in light of what I've reconstructed for Proto-1/2/3/4, I might tentatively go with [ə].

[ˈjas.t͡sʰrak] - [ˈs̪pʰrʲiʔ]~[ˈs̪pʰʒiʔ] - [ˈt̪ʰaʔ.t͡sa] - [ˈpʰirs] (Proto-1/2)
[ˈjah.srak] - [ˈfrʲiʔ] - [ˈθaʔ.t͡sa] - [haˈrəsu]~[faˈrəsu] (Proto-3/4)

[ˈjas.t͡sʰrak] - [ˈspʰrʲiʔ] - [ˈt̪ʰaʔ.t͡sa] - [ˈpʰr̩su] (Proto-1/2/3/4)
sangi39 wrote:
19 May 2020 19:35
Well, after all of the thinking... every word is spot on [:)]
Oh wow, haha! 

5) [eɕˈɕatʂ] - [ˈsfje] - [ˈθa.tsi] - [forˈʂu]
6) [eθˈθjatʃ] - [ˈspʰje] - [ˈtʰa.tse] - [pʰorˈʂu]

[esˈt͡sʰjat͡ʃ] - [ˈspʰje] - [ˈtʰa.t͡sə] - [pʰorˈʂu] (Proto-5/6)
sangi39 wrote:
19 May 2020 19:35
Same as before, just that single final vowel that's off, but your previous guess of [e] was closer.
So, it wasn't [-e] or [-æ], but [-e] is closer. Language 5 has [-i] for the third word, so I'm tempted to assume that was original to Proto-5/6. 

In all other languages outside of 5 and 6, though, the third word either ends in [-a] or a consonant. Also, I believe it's been confirmed that the third word ended in [-a] in Proto-1/2/3/4, Proto-9/10/11/12, and Proto-13/14/15/16. 

However, the final vowel of the third word wasn't [-a] in Proto-5/6/7/8,  Proto-Western, Proto-Eastern, or Proto-World. Additionally, last time, you said that 5/6 and 7/8 had the same final vowel in the third word. I originally guessed [-a] for 7/8, but that wasn't right, so I can rule it out here, too. Also, if [-e] was closer than [-æ], it wouldn't make sense for it to be [-a]. Furthermore, if 5/6 and 7/8 have the same vowel in this position, I'd assume that same vowel would be present in 5/6/7/8 as well, but [-a] was more than slightly off there. 

Hmm…

7) [asˈtsʰraʃ] - [ˈspʼrɪ] - [ˈtʼa.tsa] - [pʰuʂˈʂu]
8) [asˈtsʰrax] - [ˈspʼrɪ] - [ˈtʼats] - [pʰuˈʂu]

[asˈt͡sʰraʃ] - [ˈspʼrɪ] - [ˈtʼa.t͡sə] - [pʰuʂˈʂu]~[pʰurˈʂu] (Proto-7/8)
sangi39 wrote:
19 May 2020 19:35
For that final vowel, I'd say you're about as equally close as you were with [a], although this guess is the right height.
Wow, I definitely didn't expect to run into so much trouble here!

So, last time, you said that the final vowel of the third word was the same in 5/6 and 7/8. [-e], [-æ], and [-a] have all been incorrect, but for 5/6, [-e] was closer than [-æ], and for 7/8, [-æ] and [-a] are equally close, more or less. 

What's throwing me off is the bit about [-æ] being the right height. Strictly speaking, I'd consider [æ] near-low, higher than low [a] but lower than low-mid [ɛ]. I feel like I'm going to have to assume I'm being more nit-picky about the specifics of vowel height than I should here. 

Hmm…

[esˈt͡sʰjat͡ʃ] - [ˈspʰje] - [ˈtʰa.t͡sə] - [pʰorˈʂu] (Proto-5/6)
[asˈt͡sʰraʃ] - [ˈspʼrɪ] - [ˈtʼa.t͡sə] - [pʰuʂˈʂu]~[pʰurˈʂu] (Proto-7/8)

[æsˈt͡sʰrat͡ʃ] - [ˈspʰrɪʔ] - [ˈtʰaʔ.t͡sə] - [pʰr̩ˈʂu] (Proto-5/6/7/8)
sangi39 wrote:
19 May 2020 19:35
"Slightly" may have been misleading. [a] was a little more off than that.
Hmm…

For the final vowel of the third word, I need something that gives [-i] in 5, [-e] in 6, [-a] in 7, and [-Ø] in 8. Since it was confirmed that 5/6 and 7/8 have the same vowel in this position, I feel like I can assume that they both retained the vowel that was there in 5/6/7/8. Therefore, I believe I can rule out [-e], [-æ], and [-a]. 

Additionally, I think it's been confirmed that, while the third word ended in [-a] in 1/2/3/4, this was not the case in Proto-Western, from which 1/2/3/4 and 5/6/7/8 descend. However, I can't be sure if the final vowel of the third word was the same in Proto-Western and 5/6/7/8.  

If it were [-ɛ], I could see it being lowered to [-a] in 7, raised to [-e] in 6, and lost in 8 as the only unstressed final vowel. However, it feels a bit odd to me that it would be raised all the way to [-i] in 5 when the vowel in the second word remains [e], despite having originally been higher. In other words, if the vowel of the second word was [ɪ] and the final vowel of the third word was [-ɛ] in 5/6/7/8, the fact that language 5 has [e] and [-i] in those positions doesn't feel right to me. Maybe the placement of stress has something to do with it?

This feels like a bit of a cop-out, but I might just put [-ə] for now…
sangi39 wrote:
19 May 2020 19:35
The [j] wasn't original, and the initial vowel wasn't [e] either.
Is [a-] correct, then? Or am I now off in a different way? 

Oh, looking at your comments on my reconstruction of Proto-Western below, it looks like the latter. 

So, it wasn't [ja-], [a-], or [e-]. For now, at least, I'm assuming there was no initial consonant. Whatever it was, it ends up as [e-] in 5/6 and [a-] in 7/8. 1/2/3/4 all have [ja-], but in Proto-Western, the first word begin with neither [ja-] nor simply [a-]. The cognates in the Eastern languages all seem to point to something in the ballpark of [a-] or [e-]. 

Was this [æ-] or [ɛ-]? That might be the best I can do for now. 
sangi39 wrote:
19 May 2020 19:35
Why not both? [;P]
I have to admit I have no idea what to make of this. It seems like you're suggesting [pʰrVrˈʂu], but I just cannot imagine that's the case. I may have to come back to this. 

Oh, might it just be [-r̩-]? I assumed you were indicating that the rhotic wasn't syllabic, but…

[ˈjas.t͡sʰrak] - [ˈspʰrʲiʔ] - [ˈt̪ʰaʔ.t͡sa] - [ˈpʰr̩su] (Proto-1/2/3/4)
[æsˈt͡sʰrat͡ʃ] - [ˈspʰrɪʔ] - [ˈtʰaʔ.t͡sə] - [pʰr̩ˈʂu] (Proto-5/6/7/8)

[æsˈt͡sʰrak] - [ˈspʰriʔ] - [ˈtʰaʔ.t͡sə] - [pʰr̩ˈʂu] (Proto-Western)
sangi39 wrote:
19 May 2020 19:35
Close, but you're right that [a] isn't the right vowel either.
It wasn't [a-] or [ja-]… I might just assume it was the same as in 5/6/7/8, although I'm not confident about [æ-] or [ɛ-] here. 
sangi39 wrote:
19 May 2020 19:35
The final vowel of Word 3 is off as well, but I'd say [æ] is closer, in height at least.
I think I'm also going to assume that the final vowel of the third word was the same as in 5/6/7/8, at least for now, although I still don't feel like I have enough "real" evidence, so to speak, for [-ə]. 

 
9) [dʒaːˈtʰrax] - [aˈspʰri] - [ˈʈʰad] - [pʰeːˈʂu]
10) [ʒeːˈtʰraː] - [aˈspʰri] - [ˈʈʰar] - [pʰeiʒu]

[ʒaːˈtʰrax] - [aˈspʰri] - [ˈʈʰad] - [pʰeːˈʂu] (Proto-9/10)

11) [ʝa˥ˈtʰra˥] - [i˥ˈspʰra˩] - [ˈʈʰa˩.ta˩] - [pʰr˥ˈʂu˩]
12) [ja˥ˈtʰra˥] - [je˥ˈpʰra˩] - [ˈʈʰat˩] - [pʰr˥ˈʂu˩]

[ja˥ˈtʰra˥] - [e˥ˈspʰra˩] - [ˈʈʰa˩.ta˩] - [pʰr̩˥ˈʂu˩] (Proto-11/12)
sangi39 wrote:
19 May 2020 19:35
The initial vowel for Word 2 is closer than your original guess, but a bit off.
It seems like [ə-] is correct for Proto-9/10/11/12, so I could just assume it was retained here, but [ə-] > [je-] feels like a lot more of a stretch than [ə-] > [i-]. I think I'll go with just [e-] for now. 

Although, you did say that [i-] is closer than [je-]… but is it closer in terms of vowel quality, or because there's no initial consonant? Or both? Hmm… 

I might still just put [e-] for now, even though I'm not sure at all. 

[ʒaːˈtʰrax] - [aˈspʰri] - [ˈʈʰad] - [pʰeːˈʂu] (Proto-9/10)
[ja˥ˈtʰra˥] - [e˥ˈspʰra˩] - [ˈʈʰa˩.ta˩] - [pʰr̩˥ˈʂu˩] (Proto-11/12)

[jahˈtʰrax] - [əˈspʰriʔ] - [ˈʈʰaʔ.ta] - [pʰr̩ˈʂu] (Proto-9/10/11/12)
sangi39 wrote:
19 May 2020 19:35
Ah, this is all spot on apart from the ejective, which is my fault. I said it was off in terms of MOA, when I meant voicing, as you noted.
Oh, no worries!

13) [mesˈtʰrɔj] - [ˈspʰri] - [ˈtʰɑ.tʼa] - [pʰraˈso]
14) [ŋɛˈtʰraj] - [ˈspʰri] - [ˈtʰɑ.tʼa] - [pʰrɔˈso]

[ŋesˈtʰraj] - [ˈspʰriʔ] - [ˈtʰɑ.tʼa] - [pʰraˈso] (Proto-13/14)

15) [ɣeˈtʂʰeː] - [ˈpʰʂiː] - [ˈtʰɑː.da] - [pʰʂaˈzoː]
16) [heˈtʂʰei] - [ˈʈʂʰei] - [ˈtʰɔɑl] - [ʈʂʰaˈrou]

[ɣeˈtʂʰeː] - [ˈpʰʂiː] - [ˈtʰɑː.da] - [pʰʂaˈzoː] (Proto-15/16)

[ŋesˈtʰraj] - [ˈspʰriʔ] - [ˈtʰɑ.tʼa] - [pʰraˈso] (Proto-13/14)
[ɣeˈtʂʰeː] - [ˈpʰʂiː] - [ˈtʰɑː.da] - [pʰʂaˈzoː] (Proto-15/16)

[ŋesˈtʰraj] - [ˈspʰriʔ] - [ˈtʰɑʔ.ta] - [pʰraˈso] (Proto-13/14/15/16)
sangi39 wrote:
19 May 2020 19:35
The initial of Word 1 is the only thing that's wrong here.
Oh, hmm… I guess I'll try [ŋ-], then. 

[jahˈtʰrax] - [əˈspʰriʔ] - [ˈʈʰaʔ.ta] - [pʰr̩ˈʂu] (Proto-9/10/11/12)
[ŋesˈtʰraj] - [ˈspʰriʔ] - [ˈtʰɑʔ.ta] - [pʰraˈso] (Proto-13/14/15/16)

[ʔesˈtʰrak] - [ˈspʰriʔ] - [ˈʈʰaʔ.tə] - [pʰrəˈʂu] (Proto-Eastern)
sangi39 wrote:
19 May 2020 19:35
The only things wrong here are the initial of Word 1 and the final vowel of Word 3.
I may be wrong, but for the first word, I think I'll go with [ʔ-] for now. 

As for the final vowel of the third word… if I'm assuming it was [-ə] in Proto-Western, maybe it was [-ə] here, too? 

[æsˈt͡sʰrak] - [ˈspʰriʔ] - [ˈtʰaʔ.t͡sə] - [pʰr̩ˈʂu] (Proto-Western)
[ʔesˈtʰrak] - [ˈspʰriʔ] - [ˈʈʰaʔ.tə] - [pʰrəˈʂu] (Proto-Eastern)

[esˈtʰrak] - [ˈspʰriʔ] - [ˈʈʰaʔ.tə] - [pʰrəˈʂu] (Proto-World)
sangi39 wrote:
19 May 2020 19:35
the initial for Word 1 is wrong, as is the final for Word 3
I'm a bit torn between assuming that [#V-] > [#ʔV-] took place in Proto-Eastern and assuming that [#ʔV-] > [#V-] took place in Proto-Western. 
sangi39 wrote:
19 May 2020 19:35
I can see why you could have gone either way. It's a tricky syllable that was subject to a lot of change. For now, I'll say that a syllabic rhotic isn't right.
Hmm… maybe I'm on the wrong track, but I might go with [-rə-] for now. 
 

User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 2761
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 01:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

Re: Quick Diachronics Challenge

Post by sangi39 »

Sorry for the lack of feedback so far. I was hoping someone else might want to give it a shot 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.

shimobaatar
korean
korean
Posts: 7474
Joined: 12 Jul 2013 23:09
Location: PA → IN

Re: Quick Diachronics Challenge

Post by shimobaatar »

sangi39 wrote:
27 May 2020 08:53
Sorry for the lack of feedback so far. I was hoping someone else might want to give it a shot as well.
Oh, no worries! I completely understand. I'm willing to wait as long as you are, really.

User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 2761
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 01:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

Re: Quick Diachronics Challenge

Post by sangi39 »

shimobaatar wrote:
27 May 2020 15:47
sangi39 wrote:
27 May 2020 08:53
Sorry for the lack of feedback so far. I was hoping someone else might want to give it a shot as well.
Oh, no worries! I completely understand. I'm willing to wait as long as you are, really.
Well, it's been about 6 weeks [:P] You were pretty close with your last guess:

[esˈtʰrak] - [ˈspʰriʔ] - [ˈʈʰaʔ.tə] - [pʰrəˈʂu]

The actual proto-world forms were:

[ʔes'tʰrak] - ['spʰriʔ] - ['ʈʰaʔ.tə] - [pʰrə.ʂu]

The initials in Word 1 of languages 13 through to 16 to indeed come from [ŋ] (which emerged from earlier [ʔ]) which then became a voiced plosive (through denasalisation) in early Proto-15/16, then a fricative later on, and finally a glottal fricative in 16.
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: 7474
Joined: 12 Jul 2013 23:09
Location: PA → IN

Re: Quick Diachronics Challenge

Post by shimobaatar »

sangi39 wrote:
11 Jul 2020 19:14
Well, it's been about 6 weeks [:P] You were pretty close with your last guess:
It's a bit of a shame there weren't any other responses, but what can you do?

Oh wow, I really did get close! That's a pleasant surprise.
sangi39 wrote:
11 Jul 2020 19:14
The initials in Word 1 of languages 13 through to 16 to indeed come from [ŋ] (which emerged from earlier [ʔ]) which then became a voiced plosive (through denasalisation) in early Proto-15/16, then a fricative later on, and finally a glottal fricative in 16.
Ah, that makes sense!

I'll try to have something for the next round soon.

User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 2761
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 01:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

Re: Quick Diachronics Challenge

Post by sangi39 »

shimobaatar wrote:
22 Jul 2020 19:02
sangi39 wrote:
11 Jul 2020 19:14
Well, it's been about 6 weeks [:P] You were pretty close with your last guess:
It's a bit of a shame there weren't any other responses, but what can you do?
It happens [:)]
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: 7474
Joined: 12 Jul 2013 23:09
Location: PA → IN

Re: Quick Diachronics Challenge

Post by shimobaatar »

I've been busy lately and haven't gotten a chance to start putting anything together for the next round yet. I was planning to start today, but before I do, I'd like to ask:

Could anyone interested in participating in the next round of this game please leave a comment in this thread saying so? Before I take the time to come up with the "challenge", so to speak, for the next round, I'd like to have confirmation that at least 2 people plan on playing.

User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 2761
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 01:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

Re: Quick Diachronics Challenge

Post by sangi39 »

I'd normally say I'm in, but given that I issued the last challenge, I'd only feel comfortable saying "yes, I'm in", if there's other people playing (and I'd hide my responses and guesses with the intent of not winning anyway, so someone else gets a go at it while still letting myself take part).
You can tell the same lie a thousand times,
But it never gets any more true,
So close your eyes once more and once more believe
That they all still believe in you.
Just one time.

shimobaatar
korean
korean
Posts: 7474
Joined: 12 Jul 2013 23:09
Location: PA → IN

Re: Quick Diachronics Challenge

Post by shimobaatar »

sangi39 wrote:
12 Aug 2020 16:51
I'd normally say I'm in, but given that I issued the last challenge, I'd only feel comfortable saying "yes, I'm in", if there's other people playing (and I'd hide my responses and guesses with the intent of not winning anyway, so someone else gets a go at it while still letting myself take part).
I know what you mean.

As much as I've enjoyed these last few rounds, there's only so far this game can go, so to speak, with 2-3 players.

User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 2761
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 01:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

Re: Quick Diachronics Challenge

Post by sangi39 »

shimobaatar wrote:
12 Aug 2020 16:59
sangi39 wrote:
12 Aug 2020 16:51
I'd normally say I'm in, but given that I issued the last challenge, I'd only feel comfortable saying "yes, I'm in", if there's other people playing (and I'd hide my responses and guesses with the intent of not winning anyway, so someone else gets a go at it while still letting myself take part).
I know what you mean.

As much as I've enjoyed these last few rounds, there's only so far this game can go, so to speak, with 2-3 players.
Definitely. Three isn't too bad, as long as people drop out and new people come in, but the same two or three people every time? It does end up in a bit of a jam.

Then again, this isn't the first lull the game has had in its four year run, and I suspect people will be back for it again given time [:D]
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.

Post Reply