Spoiler:
ɶʙ ɞʛ wrote: ↑13 Dec 2022 20:36
majˈlu
ʎʎũ
mʕaɟˈɟu
< ma:ʎˈɲu
Clade is right; think more about the pharyngeal fricative with regards to the reconstruction
nɜˈjɔl
nɔlˈlon
ɲæ˩ɲæʊ˩˥
< nalˈɲɔl
Clade is right and you have the right sort of structure down, ie n(Nucleus)(lateral)n(Nucleus)(lateral), but think a bit about
[ɲæ˩ɲæʊ˩˥] might suggest wrt the reconstruction.
ˈmʏθθə
ˈmesɔ̃m
ˈneɬyf
mæ:ˈɟəʊ̯k
ˈmɛ:le
< ˈmɛjɬux
One of the words doesn't belong here, but otherwise the clade looks fine, the reconstruction isn't stellar, but it's close enough
ˈmi.a:
ˈmi.ɛ
ˈmɛχɛ
iˈjax
< ˈmjaxɛ
The clade is almost complete, but is missing one member, a small wandering itinerant group. With regards to the reconstruction, you're close enough that I'll give you the correct answer which is *['mi.æx] (the final ɛ in ['mɛxɛ] is epenthetic).
ˈmɛ:ʝaw
mɛɥ
iˈmʲa
jo
< ˈmjaw
One member of this group doesn't belong to this clade. The reconstructed form is missing one segment
ˈmjaxɛ
ˈmjaw
< ˈmjaxɛ
Not a valid secondary grouping
ma:ʎˈɲu
nalˈɲɔl
< ma:ʎˈŋɔl
Not a valid secondary grouping
ˈmjaxɛ
ˈmɛjɬux
< ˈmɛ:ɬux
Not a valid ternary grouping
ˈmɛ:ɬux
ma:ʎˈŋɔl
< ˈmɛɬʲhɔɬ
Not correct; will leave further comments for later on.
Spoiler:
shimobaatar wrote: ↑16 Dec 2022 17:58 Before I go in, I just want to say I really appreciate how much thought you put into developing the reconstruction and looking at the critique.
Third attempt:
I've started by listing out everything that I know, or at least assume I know, so far based on the responses I've gotten to my past two guesses. This is mostly for my own benefit, but if you see that I've misinterpreted anything and you're feeling generous, I'd appreciate it if you could please let me know.
First attempt:
- The resemblance between [mæːˈɟəʊk] and [mʕaɟˈɟu] is due to areal influence. I assume this means that these two are not part of the same first-level grouping at all, not just that these two alone don't constitute a first-level grouping.
- [ˈmi.aː] and [ˈmi.ɛ] are part of the same first-level grouping, but that clade also contains "a couple more languages". I'm not sure if "a couple" is being used to mean literally "two" exactly or just "a few; several; not many, but more than one or two". A couple means 'at least two, possibly more, less than seven in my lingo :) '
- [ˈmʏθθə] and [ˈmesɔ̃m] are part of the same first-level grouping, but that clade also contains "a couple more languages".
- [majˈlu] and [ʎʎũ] are part of the same first-level grouping, but that clade also contains "another language".
- [ˈneɬyf] and [ˈmɛːʝaw] are not part of the same first-level grouping.
- "Two or more" of [iˈmʲa], [jo], and [mɛɥ] "might form one clade together, but not with the other languages". I'm not sure if this means that two of these three "might" form a clade by themselves, or that two of these three "might" form a clade with the addition of some other languages.
- [ˈmɛːle] and [ˈmɛχɛ] are not part of the same first-level grouping.
- [nɜˈjɔl] and [nɔlˈlon] are part of the same first-level grouping, but that clade also contains "another language".
- [iˈjax] and [ɲæ˩ɲæʊ˩˥] are not part of the same first-level grouping.
![[tick]](./images/smilies/tickic.png "Tick")
Second attempt:Sorry with how confusing some of my wordings have been. :P
- This is apparently "a bit of a tough one". "Two or more" of [ˈmi.aː], [ˈmɛχɛ], [ˈmɛːʝaw], [ˈmi.ɛ], and [mɛɥ] "might form one clade together, but not with the other languages". I'm not sure if this means that some of these "might" form a clade by themselves, or that some of these "might" form a clade with the addition of some other languages.
- [ˈmʏθθə], [ˈmesɔ̃m], [ˈmɛːle], and [ˈneɬyf] would constitute a first-level grouping if one of the four were replaced by a different language.
- [mʕaɟˈɟu], [majˈlu], and [ʎʎũ] apparently do constitute a first-level grouping. The most recent common ancestor of these three words had final stress, but also something else that's supposedly reflected as [ʕ] in the first language.
- [nɜˈjɔl], [ɲæ˩ɲæʊ˩˥], and [nɔlˈlon] apparently do constitute a first-level grouping. Something about the most recent common ancestor of these three words is supposedly reflected by something in the second language.
- [iˈmʲa] and [jo] are not part of the same first-level grouping.
- Only one language constitutes a first-level grouping by itself. This language is neither [mæːˈɟəʊk] nor [iˈjax], which should instead be "grouped with some other languages in their region".
[mʕaɟˈɟu]
[majˈlu]
[ʎʎũ]
< [mɑʎˈʎu]
Where does [ʕ] in the first language come from? Am I missing an entire segment, some kind of phonation or secondary articulation, or something else? Is it the quality of the unstressed vowel? I suppose that's what I'll assume this round. It's a segment.
Honestly, this is fairly close. I'm not gonna keep you guessing since you got the grouping, and both of you are fairly close to the correct answer, which would probably reconstruct *maʕʎ'ʎu or *maʔʎ'ʎu, of which the former is intended. I wouldn't have treated the latter as wrong though.
[nɜˈjɔl]
[ɲæ˩ɲæʊ˩˥]
[nɔlˈlon]
< [ɲaˈɲɔl]
What about [ɲæ˩ɲæʊ˩˥] is supposed to suggest something missing from the reconstruction? Tone is probably the most obvious feature that sets it apart from the others, but it also has the two palatal nasals, two instances of [æ], and the diphthong or vowel sequence in the final syllable. I've been wondering almost since the beginning about the apparent correspondence between the final lateral in [nɜˈjɔl] and the final nasal in [nɔlˈlon], so for now, I'm going to guess that the final lateral may be the origin of [æʊ] in [ɲæ˩ɲæʊ˩˥].
The set of inquiries that you have are on the right track [ɲæ˩ɲæʊ˩ ˥] is very interesting insofar as it has two palatal nasals, two copies of the same vowel, and if you look closely, two of something else. Of course, it didn't perfectly retain the innovation of the protolanguage as it existed in the proto-language, but it does a pretty darn good job, compared to the other two languages. :)
[mæːˈɟəʊk]
[ˈmʏθθə]
[ˈmesɔ̃m]
[ˈneɬyf]
< [ˈmeɕəw̃]
I'm pretty sure about keeping [ˈmʏθθə] and [ˈmesɔ̃m] together. [mæːˈɟəʊk] should apparently be grouped with some of the other languages in its region. Apart from [mʕaɟˈɟu], its closest neighbors appear to be [ˈmʏθθə] and [ˈmɛːle]. For this round, I'm going to try putting [mæːˈɟəʊk] with [ˈmʏθθə] and [ˈmesɔ̃m] because it doesn't seem too farfetched to assume a correspondence between a palatal stop and coronal fricatives.
Based on the response I got on my second guess, I'm assuming that either [ˈmɛːle] or [ˈneɬyf] belongs here as well, but I've really been going back and forth with myself on which one to include this round. [ˈmesɔ̃m] and [ˈneɬyf] are both "nasal + stressed [e] + single voiceless coronal fricative + rounded vowel + labial", but [ˈmɛːle] begins with [m] and its [ɛː] reminds me of the [æː] in [mæːˈɟəʊk]. Geographically, there also appears to be less distance between [ˈmɛːle] and [mæːˈɟəʊk] than between [ˈneɬyf] and [ˈmesɔ̃m].
Nevertheless, I think I'm going to try going with [ˈneɬyf] this time, if only because I'm unsure at the moment where else I'd put it without having two "isolates" at this stage or going against something else that I currently assume has been established, namely that it doesn't belong with [ˈmɛːʝaw]. I'm not too happy with what I've landed on for the hypothetical most recent common ancestor of these four words, but oh well.
This is the correct clade. It's a very derived clade though, so it's no surprise that the MRCA is very hard to reconstruct, and feels... wonky. I'll be giving a "hint" below for everyone.
[ˈmi.aː]
[ˈmɛχɛ]
[ˈmi.ɛ]
[iˈjax]
< [ˈmejax]
I'm pretty sure about keeping [ˈmi.aː] and [ˈmi.ɛ] together. [iˈjax] should apparently be grouped with some of the other languages in its region. Its closest neighbors appear to be [ˈmi.aː], [ˈmi.ɛ], [nɜˈjɔl], and [ɲæ˩ɲæʊ˩˥]. [iˈjax] apparently doesn't belong in the same first-level grouping as [ɲæ˩ɲæʊ˩˥], so I'm very tentatively putting it with [ˈmi.aː] and [ˈmi.ɛ] this round. I'm including [ˈmɛχɛ] as well because it's spoken relatively nearby and has a dorsal fricative like [iˈjax], but initial stress and [m] like [ˈmi.aː] and [ˈmi.ɛ].
The clade is almost complete, but is missing one member, a small wandering itinerant group. With regards to the reconstruction, you're close enough that I'll give you the correct answer which is *['mi.æx] (the final ɛ in ['mɛxɛ] is epenthetic).
[ˈmɛːle]
[ˈmɛːʝaw]
[iˈmʲa]
[mɛɥ]
< [ˈmɛʎɛw]
In the first round, I put [iˈmʲa], [jo], and [mɛɥ] together, and based on the response I got, I assume that two of them actually belong in the same group. In the second round, I put [iˈmʲa] and [jo] together, which was not correct. For this round, I'm going to try putting [iˈmʲa] and [mɛɥ] together instead. I'm including [ˈmɛːʝaw] as well both because of phonetic similarities and because it's not spoken too far from [iˈmʲa]. I'm also putting [ˈmɛːle] here if only because I'm not sure where else to put it. There's a fair bit of distance between [ˈmɛːle] and [ˈmɛːʝaw] on the map, but I'm hoping it's not unreasonable to assume that it wouldn't be too difficult for people to move between those mountainous areas near where [ˈmɛːle] is spoken.
[jo]
< [jo]
Basically via the process of elimination, I'm going to assume for now that [jo] may be the one "isolate" at this level.
[mɑʎˈʎu]
[ˈmeɕəw̃]
< [mæʎˈʎũː]
All of these second-level groupings are based primarily on geography, honestly. I don't think I've gotten all the first-level groupings correct yet, so maybe there's no point to trying to reconstruct anything further back in time, but I suppose I'm doing it anyway.
[ɲaˈɲɔl]
[ˈmejax]
< [mʲæˈj̃aɫ]
This second layer grouping is correct (or at least is mostly, considering the one missing language from 'mejax, but the reconstruction isn't, not until you clarify what happened in the other group.
[ˈmɛʎɛw]
[jo]
< [mɛˈʎew]
[mæʎˈʎũː]
[mʲæˈj̃aɫ]
[mɛˈʎew]
< [mæɬʲˈŋɛu]
Just to make sure, does this mean that any consonant can be palatalized or just that any fricative can be palatalized? Any consonant can be palatized :)
Below is an image that contains all the groups that have been fully identified, even if not by yourself
Spoiler:
